References: <199707031746.KAA00247@math.uci.edu>
            <199707040808.JAA16305@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <199707040916.LAA27053@frank.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199707040808.JAA16305@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
Date:         Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:16:11 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach <Frank.Mittelbach@UNI-MAINZ.DE>
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

Sebastian Rahtz writes:
 >  > L:  works under LaTeX
 >  > OL: works under LaTeX 2.09
 >  > P:  works under plain TeX
 >  > X:  support application, OS specific
 > this would be interesting to try and maintain, but i don't think its very
 > practical. its just too much work. do you even *have* latex209 to test
 > under? i dont.

as i said you don't need to. but it would help to weed out CTAN which
is in parts a real mess (no offence intended, so is the latex kernel
:-)

so i would throw out everything completely which clearly identifies
itself as LaTeX2.08 or LaTeX2.06

and label everything else thatdoes work under current latex as L and
that doesn't with OL (unless the tester can see directly that it is
just plain wrong in which case i would suggest having that check by
somebody else too and then throw it away as well).

 >  >  - useful general hacks
 >  >  - class files for publishers and journals
 >  >  - other class files
 >  >  - letters
 >  >  - font related
 >  >  - language related
 >  >  - graphics
 >  >  - packages for special applications: Chemistry, Computer Science,
 >  >    Mathematics, Physics etc.
 > i think these could reasonably be supplied by the author of the
 > package, in the case of new packages

yes as a form, see other mail

this goes back to the idea of bundles that have been discussed but
never concluded and therefore never implemented. perhaps back then it
was too grand an idea. so making it smaller might work

frank