References: <199707031135.MAA13033@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
            <199707031448.KAA09508@fenris.math.albany.edu>
Message-ID:  <199707031600.RAA14964@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199707031448.KAA09508@fenris.math.albany.edu>
Date:         Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:00:46 +0100
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals)
Status: R

Mark Steinberger writes:

 > Clear criteria for classification might be useful, here.

well, thats the nub of the problem, isn't it. there is an alternative,
which is to categorize by type, eg

 - useful general hacks
 - class files for publishers and journals
 - letters
 - font related

but i personally don't find that helpful - we still need some way of
deciding which ones to tell eg Thomas Esser or Eberhard Mattes to
distribute to everyone.

i suggest that going beyond my 3 - way is too hard. so

 * we don't have any choice about 1; its what They give us
 * by default everything is in 3, ie useful if you feel like looking
    at it
 * things go into 2 by acclamation; its a staging post to 1, if you
   like. things like carlisle, calc, fancyhdr, and cite seem obviously
   useful on any system, whereas nassflow is probably only used by 3
   people.

one thing i can promise is that if anyone does classify LaTeX
packages,  i will instantiate it on TeX Live. please note that the TeX
Live coding is present in Graham Williams catalogue, so thats an
excellent place to encapsulate the decisions.

sebastian