Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:26:31 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h06AQT6C012089 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:26:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B56E.14376580" Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h06AH7wO007095; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:17:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h064ACX6008642; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:10:30 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5116 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:10:30 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h06AAUTk009999 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:10:30 +0100 Received: from wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk (IDENT:e7OClKWHK2oD4J98DaI1M+DlZwnJYIIB@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.15]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h06AGwwO007037 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:16:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from pallas.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.8.88] helo=cl.cam.ac.uk ident=[O2utJMOF+wFPN42VtVrn9JDBNFFsU7zE]) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id 18VUJP-0005Ap-00 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:16:51 +0000 In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:49:42 +0100. Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2003 10:26:32.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[14D245F0:01C2B56E] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -0.5 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:16:51 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK1bhT1Lr6QzwaiSy6tOlooDu7MrA== From: "Robin Fairbairns" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4395 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B56E.14376580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Martin Schroeder writes: > > > On 2003-01-04 13:57:55 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > > > The format/executable combination that distribution vendors are to = use > > > for the executables named `latex' and `pdflatex' is to be eTeX, > > > respectively PDFeTeX. For those that want to test out = compatibility > > > > I doubt that this will happen for LaTeX, as this is very frozen > > now. LaTeX3 will run on Omega, and Omega will incorporate the > > best of eTeX. :-) > > I am not talking about what will happen in 10 years of time. I am > talking about what is crippling LaTeX development right now. In > contrast to a change to Omega, a change to e-TeX will not disturb any > existing styles and operation. e-TeX is stable and has been available > for years. Omega isn't stable, isn't documented properly and still > in constant flux. i'm inclined to agree with you, to an extent. (nb, speaking in a personal capacity, not hoping to represent project policy.) the problem is that there are two separate axes on which latex development is being hampered for want of extensions. the one you've not mentioned is multilingual-latex development: there's a lot of work going on in that area at present, and it's not clear that any significant step beyond today's babel is possible without omega-like facilities. you will have seen the "latex requirements" document, that appears in one of the omega development white papers: a significant part of that involves merging the relevant parts of e-tex extensions. a stable omega that provides those extensions would obviously be a "dream platform"; given that it's unlikely to be available soon, the question remains, "how should we proceed from here". i suspect we must develop a two-pronged attack, taking every possible precaution to ensure that when the dream platform _does_ appear, the two versions can be merged. i have severe misgivings about the actual practicality/efficacy of such precautions. robin ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B56E.14376580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Proposed change of policy

>         = Martin Schroeder <martin@ONEIROS.DE> writes:
>
> > On 2003-01-04 13:57:55 +0100, David Kastrup = wrote:
> > > The format/executable combination that = distribution vendors are to use
> > > for the executables named `latex' and = `pdflatex' is to be eTeX,
> > > respectively PDFeTeX.  For those = that want to test out compatibility
> >
> > I doubt that this will happen for LaTeX, as = this is very frozen
> > now. LaTeX3 will run on Omega, and Omega = will incorporate the
> > best of eTeX. :-)
>
> I am not talking about what will happen in 10 = years of time.  I am
> talking about what is crippling LaTeX = development right now.  In
> contrast to a change to Omega, a change to e-TeX = will not disturb any
> existing styles and operation.  e-TeX is = stable and has been available
> for years.  Omega isn't stable, isn't = documented properly and still
> in constant flux.

i'm inclined to agree with you, to an extent.  = (nb, speaking in a
personal capacity, not hoping to represent project = policy.)

the problem is that there are two separate axes on = which latex
development is being hampered for want of = extensions.  the one you've
not mentioned is multilingual-latex development: = there's a lot of work
going on in that area at present, and it's not clear = that any
significant step beyond today's babel is possible = without omega-like
facilities.

you will have seen the "latex requirements" = document, that appears in
one of the omega development white papers: a = significant part of that
involves merging the relevant parts of e-tex = extensions.  a stable
omega that provides those extensions would obviously = be a "dream
platform"; given that it's unlikely to be = available soon, the question
remains, "how should we proceed from = here".

i suspect we must develop a two-pronged attack, taking = every possible
precaution to ensure that when the dream platform = _does_ appear, the
two versions can be merged.

i have severe misgivings about the actual = practicality/efficacy of
such precautions.

robin

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B56E.14376580--