MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <98110912272255@man.ac.uk> <199811101228.MAA14652@nag.co.uk>
            <13896.14781.711560.872729@srahtz>
            <19981111162952.B30536@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID:  <13898.42586.749539.995192@srahtz>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <19981111162952.B30536@maths.tcd.ie>
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:11:54 +0000
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.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

Timothy Murphy writes:
 > I wonder if it would not be possible
 > to lay down a fairly strict protocol
 > governing "acceptable" packages,
 > so that one could automate downloading?
 >
very much so. our friend Joachim Schrod was once specifying this, but
it never got off the ground. my rules would be:

 - general applicability ( :-} )
 - no duplication of functionality
 - works with any or all of other packages in collection (within
    reason)
 - uses fixed directory structure and file names to allow automated
    updating
 - comes with documentation and test file (if possible)

Sebastian