Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <199707081002.MAA24208@macbeth.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199707080756.RAA20667@flash.anu.edu.au> (message from Richard
              Walker on Tue, 8 Jul 1997 17:56:31 +1000)
Date:         Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:02:04 +0200
From: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@THPHY.UNI-DUESSELDORF.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: discussing relation of LaTeX to TeX successors
Status: R

> Richard Walker writes:

> > Most standards are drafts anyway.
>
> Errr . . . whatever you say :-)
>
> Maybe it's just because I don't think leaving it at version 0.9993
> sends the right sort of message.

Yes, but see how close it is to 1.0 (the supposedly final version)?

If I remember correctly, the version number of the first public review
draft (mid-1995) was bumped up to 0.98 to covey the image of being
almost finished, while still leaving room for revisions.  The second
public version (November 1995) was then called 0.999 and officially
published in TUGboat 16#4.  I believe the reason for not yet calling
it 1.0 was simpy to give readers another chance for comments before
finalizing it.

If I remember correctly, very few things have changed since in the
transition from 0.999 to 0.9993, most of which probably had to do with
formatting and converting to Texinfo/HTML.  In fact, even as a TWG-TDS
participant, I can't remember what was actually changed in the text,
so it can't have been anything really substantial.  As I just found
in the mail archive, there was indeed the suggestion to prepare an
updated for publication as the official version 1.0.  It seems like
this somehow never happened, as probably everyone involved was busy
with other projects.
  -=- MIME -=-
Rainer Schoepf writes:
 > Richard Walker writes:
 >=20
 >  > Clearly the reason we do not have this for CTAN is the fact that =
TDS
 >  > is still only a `draft' standard.
 >=20
 > No! The reason is that there are not enough people in the TeX world
 > that work on CTAN.

Touch\'{e}!  But surely there can not be a CTAN.pm before TDS is
widely accepted (even if it is not finalized).  On the other hand,
maybe the availability of a CTAN.pm would encourage wide acceptance of
TDS?

 > Most standards are drafts anyway.

Errr . . . whatever you say :-)

Maybe it's just because I don't think leaving it at version 0.9993
sends the right sort of message.

 > Rainer Sch=F6pf (wearing his CTAN hat)

Richard (with tie, no hat)


Hope this clarifies the situation.

Cheers, Ulrik.