References:  <199812100141.UAA16278@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
Message-ID:  <199812101049.KAA17328@nag.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199812100141.UAA16278@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
              (hammond@CSC.ALBANY.EDU)
Date:         Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:49:21 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: portable LaTeX
Status: R

> In practice *today* only Lamport LaTeX has a chance of being viewed
> as portable.  LaTeX2E appears to lack a wide enough distribution at
> this point.

huh?

Many people still author in 2.09 style as they never bothered to read
any documentation, since they first started using latex (if they started
before 1994) but most by now are using 2e to process those documents. I
do not think there is any tex distribution that does not include
latex2e, and most of them follow the request not to distribute the
obsolete version. Calling 2.09 `lamport latex' is rather a confusing
term (which I have noticed you have also used in previous posts). Both
LaTeX2.09 and LaTeX2e have an official manual authored by Leslie
Lamport. The 2.09 manual is the first edition which has been out of
print since 1993. The 2e manual is the second edition which has been
available since 1994. I am sure by now no bookshop has the former, so to
base a `portable' specification on a system which is not distributed,
not supported and has an out of print manual would be distinctly odd
wouldn't it?

David