References: <199707031746.KAA00247@math.uci.edu>
            <199707040842.JAA16345@knott.elsevier.co.uk>
            <199707041205.OAA07322@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Message-ID:  <199707041229.NAA15361@lochnagarn.elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199707041205.OAA07322@centre.univ-orleans.fr>
Date:         Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:29:36 +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

 > I think it is extremely useful to have the TeXIndex of Jones
 > updated.
forget Jones. the only person working on this is Williams

 > if  somebody wants to do something and the "xyz" package
 > exactly does what he needs, what is the use for him to know that the
 > package has been classified by somebody as a "not a must have"?
 > And for those who are not interested in what "xyz" package does,
 > getting an opinion on it is useless too. So, why giving any opinion
because otherwise every person who doees a TeX package will pick
different things to include. you _like_ the current anarchic
situation? yes, its all very unaggressive and reasonable and `spirit
of TeX' but its also a huge irritation. For instance, I fired up
Y&YTeX last night, and my document was fine apart from needing
url.sty, so i had to go and trawl through  a CD to copy it in. wouldnt
it have been nice to have known that if i used `url' it would process
on most Tex setups?

 > And cataloging a package as "generally agreed important application"
 > is not very serious, is it ? As it will reflect the opinion of, from
 > one individual (for many packages) to ten (say hundred for the
you accept the judgement of the LaTeX team as to what goes into tools,
dont you? its just extending that.

 > I am not sure that users really need opinions. I think they need
 > much more an exhaustive catalog, as the original TeXIndex is,
 > updated and with improved abstracts and demo files. Once they have
they have had it for a long time now, Williams catalogue, but it
appears to be rather unknown

 > and no test files. And, about the texlive key, replace it by a
 > pointer to these test files ?
so when you get a TeX CD with 500 LaTeX packages on it, do you just
install all of them on your hard disk willy-nilly?

i just think its unrealistic to pretend that there is not a
distinction between packages which are referred to every day on lists
and news groups (lets keep calc as an example), and packages which
provide a class file for theses in the University of Gondwanaland.

why don't we just go back to everyone using plain TeX or manmac, with
CM fonts, and swapping cute macros full of \expandafter on
texhax. we'll find Phil Taylor and Kees van der Laan waiting there to
welcome us!

sebastian