X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
	["1182" "Tue" "10" "November" "1998" "17:24:49" "GMT" "David Carlisle" "davidc@NAG.CO.UK" nil "29" "Re: What is \"base\" LaTeX" "^Date:" nil nil "11" nil "What is \"base\" LaTeX" nil nil nil]
	nil)
Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1])
	by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01202;
	Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:25:19 +0100 (MET)
Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.EE5597DE@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:25:17 +0100
Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
          (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 408113 for
          LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:25:10 +0100
Received: from nag.co.uk (openmath.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.16]) by
          relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA00785 for
          <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:25:07 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from davidc@localhost) by nag.co.uk (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) id
          RAA16684; Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:24:49 GMT
References: <E0zdGwo-00031G-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
            <36487293.A2ECE3B9@na.uni-tuebingen.de>
Message-ID:  <199811101724.RAA16684@nag.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <36487293.A2ECE3B9@na.uni-tuebingen.de> (message from Marcel
              Oliver on Tue, 10 Nov 1998 18:06:27 +0100)
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:24:49 GMT
From: David Carlisle <davidc@NAG.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: What is "base" LaTeX
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 2827

Marcel

> The question is only:
>
> What packages are necessary for author-author and author-publisher
> document exchange

I think this is a very good point.

> and UNLESS IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED, which, as
> far as the practical problems go, is problem number one

Documented, and agreed. If you (for example:-) were to volunteer to
draw up a list of `must have' packages, and wrap them all in some
consistent installation and documentation format, and document how this
is the minimum required latex installation for document interchange.

Then this will be a lot of work (thanks for volunteering!) but it will
only help the user who is trying to submit his article if you also
pursuade the publisher to accept such documents. For example last I
heard <well known publisher who shall remain nameless> were still
recommending their authors use latex 2.09, so getting (some) publishers
to move may take as much effort as producing the list in the first place.

Of course this is a chicken and egg situation. You can't really expect
that publishers accept such a list until it exists. (Although as I just
pointed out, essentially the tex live CDs provide such a list already).

David