X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1359" "Fri" "4" "July" "1997" "11:10:22" "+0200" "Frank Mittelbach" "Frank.Mittelbach@UNI-MAINZ.DE" nil "47" "Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals)" "^Date:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA13481 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:33:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.87A22A96@listserv.gmd.de>; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:33:17 +0200 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 163220 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:33:12 +0200 Received: from kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.158]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.7.6/8.7.4) with ESMTP id LAA24937 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:33:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (Ufrank@localhost) by kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.5) with UUCP id LAA12518 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:21:42 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: kralle.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE: Ufrank set sender to frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de!latex3 using -f Received: (from latex3@localhost) by frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA27044; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:10:22 +0200 References: <970703190118.2e8b4@vms.rhbnc.ac.uk> <199707040809.JAA16308@knott.elsevier.co.uk> Message-ID: <199707040910.LAA27044@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199707040809.JAA16308@knott.elsevier.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:10:22 +0200 From: Frank Mittelbach Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Availability of Class files (was: LaTeX3 goals) Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2251 Sebastian Rahtz writes: > Philip Taylor writes: > > >> L: works under LaTeX > > >> OL: works under LaTeX 2.09 > > >> P: works under plain TeX > > >> X: support application, OS specific > > > > +:= E1: requires e-TeX V1 > > E2: requires e-TeX V2 > > On: requires Omega Vn... > > shall we just let the authors provide this clue? rather than trying to > test it independently? ideally yes, but that works only - if from the CTAN maintainers you provide a form that has to be filled out by everybody when making a contribution (otherwise you don't accept it) - it doesn't solve all the old stuff (although the old stuff doesn't need phil's additionals it still need or could do with the other). in fact a different way to look at it is L: works with current LaTeX P: works with plain TeX X: support appl OS specific all three i think can be easily be determined OL: works with 209 as you say is difficult so turn it into OL: might have worked with 209 which is essentially *5 in my other classification. so i would just test for L and if not it goes -> OL (or *5) a real test against a 209 version seems pointless to me a) which one there have been so many, remember? b) why should we acutally spend time to trace those packages. but the general distinction seems sensible i'd say frank