Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f7VGNu906151 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:23:56 +0200 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.4/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f7VGNtT23001 . for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:23:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C13239.54C7F600" Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VGNsG10288 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:23:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19925 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:23:53 +0200 (MEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VGNqJ01049 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:23:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VGM1b23152; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:22:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.11.3/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id f7VGLEo10878; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:21:14 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 1148 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:21:12 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.11.3/8.11.3/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id f7VGLBo10872 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:21:11 +0200 Received: from smtp.wanadoo.es ([62.37.236.138]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VGLwb23138 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:21:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [62.37.82.177] (62-37-82-177.dialup.uni2.es [62.37.82.177]) by smtp.wanadoo.es (8.11.3/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VGLZ400058 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:21:35 +0200 (MEST) In-Reply-To: <15247.27772.447636.809305@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Return-Path: User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LaTeX3 and Omega Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:27:09 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Javier Bezos" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4157 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C13239.54C7F600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frank, > Javier, > Chris and I had a very fruitful and long session with Yannis and John = earlier > this year about the possibibility of basing a LaTeX successor solemnly = on an > Omega successor. Note the word "successor" being used twice. Good news, I think. Formerly, in the discussion previous to the meeting in Tsukuba, Omega was only *another* possibility, even in your messages. (In other words, I didn't misinterpret the Robin's opinion as the team's opinion, I just included a "deprecated" opinion ;-) ) Now Omega is the main candidate (if the suggested improvements are fulfilled in a successor, of course) by far. >> I think exactly the opposite -- Omega will give live to LaTeX while >> "old" TeX will be a burden. > > i agree with you here, but only if Omega changes to a more "stable and = final" > product, something which, for good reasons, it currently isn't. I = really hope > that this is going to happen since IMHO Omega is the only successor of = TeX > that has a good chance to replace it. Agreed. Cheers Javier ------_=_NextPart_001_01C13239.54C7F600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LaTeX3 and Omega

Frank,

> Javier,

> Chris and I had a very fruitful and long session = with Yannis and John earlier
> this year about the possibibility of basing a = LaTeX successor solemnly on an
> Omega successor. Note the word = "successor" being used twice.

Good news, I think. Formerly, in the discussion = previous to the
meeting in Tsukuba, Omega was only *another* = possibility, even in your
messages. (In other words, I didn't misinterpret the = Robin's opinion
as the team's opinion, I just included a = "deprecated" opinion
;-) ) Now Omega is the main candidate (if the = suggested improvements
are fulfilled in a successor, of course) by = far.

>> I think exactly the opposite -- Omega will = give live to LaTeX while
>> "old" TeX will be a burden.
>
> i agree with you here, but only if Omega changes = to a more "stable and final"
> product, something which, for good reasons, it = currently isn't. I really hope
> that this is going to happen since IMHO Omega is = the only successor of TeX
> that has a good chance to replace it.

Agreed.

Cheers
Javier

------_=_NextPart_001_01C13239.54C7F600--