Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:53:10 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h06Hr76C013507 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:53:08 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h06HlVEV029161; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:47:32 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5AC.79AA4700" 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 h064ACbg008642; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:40:56 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5464 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:40:56 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h06HetTk012379 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:40:55 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.183]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h06HlNEV029130 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:47:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18VbLP-0000eg-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:47:23 +0100 Received: from [80.129.1.68] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18VbLO-0000Do-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:47:22 +0100 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id h06HkqZ02270; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:46:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2003 17:53:10.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[79EDB8A0:01C2B5AC] X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.mittelbach-online.de: frank set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 () IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,X_AUTH_WARNING Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:46:52 +0100 Message-ID: A<15897.49420.486809.50100@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK1rHoSHWrmHbo7SFCvqbdiAi4M/g== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5AC.79AA4700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David wrote > > But the question then arises: why e-TeX? Why not Omega, an > > e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ? > > Because functionality present in e-TeX is desperately needed for > implementing more versatile output routines than the present, was > explicitly requested by LaTeX project team members and implemented > for their sake. well, to get some historical facts right :-) ... the LaTeX project never explicitly requested anything that is in eTeX and i don't think one can = say it was put there for our sake. what happened was that some parts of eTex = have been a sort of "reverse-engineering" of stuff that got solved in LaTeX + = some functionality that the eTeX developers thought could be useful perhaps. I seriously doubt that there is much in terms of new functionailty that actually allows more functionalty in TeX. There are however some bits = that make programming simpler and more straight forward. Speaking of what we "requested" from the eTeX team (but what was unfortunately never = implemented due to the fact that eTeX development stopped) is recorded in: http://www.latex-project.org/papers/etex-meeting-notes.pdf and http://www.latex-project.org/papers/etex-math-notes.pdf > Instead of refusing to step forward until we can go as far as > possible, we should concentrate on going as far as necessary, and > e-TeX _is_ necessary and available. this is in fact at least partially true (and different from the = situation in 1998). these days eTeX *is* indeed more or less generally available (but = see below). in 1998 when the Oldenburg meeting happened I (for my part) = rejected the idea of moving to etex as it was then, for the simple reason that a) it was not generally available for a large part of the community = (at least not without hassle) and b) it did only provide benefits for the developers but no benefits for = the user as such. as a result people would have been (even more) reluctant = to switch. as i said i think the situation is better now, but one has to be aware = of the fact that there are in fact a large number of commercial implementations around that do not have eTeX support on board! and anybody who has done = some support for publishing houses will know that authors (especially) in the = US often come along with PCTeX, Y&Y, ... > In contrast, Omega is a moving target and widely undocumented. The > features specific to Omega are rather orthogonal to most of the > problems the LaTeX3 project is tackling. I second the nice phrase "widely undocumented" :-) but i disagree that = the features specific to Omega are orthogonal to most problems that we try = to tackle. or rather I would like to rephase that: as it is today, that = statement is true, but as of today most of the programming and functionality = support that i would like to see in a successor of TeX is also not part of eTeX = (again see above paper on the Oldenburg sessions). Now eTeX is dead or frozen = as far as I can see, Omega is not. Now you are right that a moving target is of not much use to LaTeX = either. For this reason we've been in close contact with the Omega team to see if = there could be a maintained/moreorlessfrozen/documented/... Omega+- that has - good parts of etex - good parts of etex oldenburg notes - good parts of omega as of now - good parts of ... within a reasonable short timeframe and see whether that could be used = to move further development to. whether that is possible is something (I = guess) this year will show. for my part an eetex (ie etex+oldenburg) would do as a first step as = well the benefit of just using etex however is fairly small (though it exists for = new stuff) whether it is a good move to suggest for 2e is a different matter = and that is what started this discussion. why do i think it may not be a good thing for 2e? because even though etex has a wider distribution these days, it has not necessarily a wide enough distribution and it doesn't immediately offer features that make people die for it, eg to take the trouble and change = their installation. eg take the protection (that is solved within LaTeX = perhaps not perfectly but it works, eTeX will make the internals work better (except = that it may not work at all as it did have a bug there) but from the outside = for the user nothing changes. > The current ignorance of e-TeX is not merely hampering ongoing LaTeX3 > efforts, it is also crippling people working on LaTeX2e packages. > Even if LaTeX3 will be released in 10 years only, it is a shame not > being able to work with e-TeX before. nobody hinders you to do that right now: you could in a package check if eTeX is there and if not print out a rude message and exit. = that is what Martin called "etex aware" i guess. but it is slighly different = from changing the 2e kernel so that it dies on a vanilla TeX and therefore = perhaps on 1/5 of all TeX installations (that are in real use) > I am not talking about what users will be forced to use once LaTeX3 > comes out. I am talking about what engine should be available to > LaTeX2e users and upwards. so it seems to me that to answer this question really is to evaluate if = the concerns mentioned above are real or imaginary; also to evaluate if it = would be important to actually have eTeX support in the kernel. there is = nearly nothing that really must be done in a format (other than loading = hyphenation patterns), thus even an output routine could be loaded afterwards = replacing the current routine. > In addition, one can't find out what additional primitives the core > would warrant if one never gets into a serious state, and one can't > get into a serious state if one choses to wait all the time for > non-existent features. > > I can tell you a dozen good reasons why it would be an excessively > bad idea to declare Omega the default TeX engine for LaTeX now. I agreed, but now is no here nor there. any default engine needs to be = stable and maintained and basically feature frozen. whilst omega does not = provide such stability it is not a candidate. > can't give you a single reason why e-TeX should not be declared the > default TeX engine for LaTeX _now_. not agreed (uncertain). but to be honest, it is something i was considering a few weeks ago at = least for everything in the xpackage area. as for the 2e default engine I have = my reservations for the reasons outlined above. but then encouraging people = to provide packages that use eTeX features might be a first step in this direction. frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5AC.79AA4700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Proposed change of policy

David wrote

 > > But the question then arises:  = why e-TeX?  Why not Omega, an
 > > e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ?
 >
 > Because functionality present in e-TeX is = desperately needed for
 > implementing more versatile output = routines than the present, was
 > explicitly requested by LaTeX project team = members and implemented
 > for their sake.

well, to get some historical facts right :-) ... the = LaTeX project never
explicitly requested anything that is in eTeX and i = don't think one can say it
was put there for our sake. what happened was that = some parts of eTex have
been a sort of "reverse-engineering" of = stuff that got solved in LaTeX + some
functionality that the eTeX developers thought could = be useful perhaps.

I seriously doubt that there is much in terms of new = functionailty that
actually allows more functionalty in TeX. There are = however some bits that
make programming simpler and more straight forward. = Speaking of what we
"requested" from the eTeX team (but what = was unfortunately never implemented
due to the fact that eTeX development stopped) is = recorded in:

http:= //www.latex-project.org/papers/etex-meeting-notes.pdf

and

http://w= ww.latex-project.org/papers/etex-math-notes.pdf

 > Instead of refusing to step forward until = we can go as far as
 > possible, we should concentrate on going = as far as necessary, and
 > e-TeX _is_ necessary and available.

this is in fact at least partially true (and different = from the situation in
1998). these days eTeX *is* indeed more or less = generally available (but see
below). in 1998 when the Oldenburg meeting happened I = (for my part) rejected
the idea of moving to etex as it was then, for the = simple reason that

  a) it was not generally available for a large = part of the community (at
least not without hassle) and

  b) it did only provide benefits for the = developers but no benefits for the
user as such. as a result people would have been = (even more) reluctant to
switch.

as i said i think the situation is better now, but one = has to be aware of the
fact that there are in fact a large number of = commercial implementations
around that do not have eTeX support on board! and = anybody who has done some
support for publishing houses will know that authors = (especially) in the US
often come along with PCTeX, Y&Y, ...

 > In contrast, Omega is a moving target and = widely undocumented.  The
 > features specific to Omega are rather = orthogonal to most of the
 > problems the LaTeX3 project is = tackling.

I second the nice phrase "widely = undocumented" :-) but i disagree that the
features specific to Omega are orthogonal to most = problems that we try to
tackle. or rather I would like to rephase that: as it = is today, that statement
is true, but as of today most of the programming and = functionality support
that i would like to see in a successor of TeX is = also not part of eTeX (again
see above paper on the Oldenburg sessions). Now eTeX = is dead or frozen as far
as I can see, Omega is not.

Now you are right that a moving target is of not much = use to LaTeX either. For
this reason we've been in close contact with the = Omega team to see if there
could be a maintained/moreorlessfrozen/documented/... = Omega+- that has

 - good parts of etex
 - good parts of etex oldenburg notes
 - good parts of omega as of now
 - good parts of ...

within a reasonable short timeframe and see whether = that could be used to
move further development to. whether that is possible = is something (I guess)
this year will show.

for my part an eetex (ie etex+oldenburg) would do as a = first step as well the
benefit of just using etex however is fairly small = (though it exists for new
stuff) whether it is a good move to suggest for 2e is = a different matter and
that is what started this discussion.

why do i think it may not be a good thing for = 2e?

because even though etex has a wider distribution = these days, it has not
necessarily a wide enough distribution and it doesn't = immediately offer
features that make people die for it, eg to take the = trouble and change their
installation. eg take the protection (that is solved = within LaTeX perhaps not
perfectly but it works, eTeX will make the internals = work better (except that
it may not work at all as it did have a bug there) = but from the outside for
the user nothing changes.

 > The current ignorance of e-TeX is not = merely hampering ongoing LaTeX3
 > efforts, it is also crippling people = working on LaTeX2e packages.
 > Even if LaTeX3 will be released in 10 = years only, it is a shame not
 > being able to work with e-TeX = before.

nobody hinders you to do that right now: you could in = a package
check if eTeX is there and if not print out a rude = message and exit. that is
what Martin called "etex aware" i guess. = but it is slighly different from
changing the 2e kernel so that it dies on a vanilla = TeX and therefore perhaps
on 1/5 of all TeX installations (that are in real = use)

 > I am not talking about what users will be = forced to use once LaTeX3
 > comes out.  I am talking about what = engine should be available to
 > LaTeX2e users and upwards.

so it seems to me that to answer this question really = is to evaluate if the
concerns mentioned above are real or imaginary; also = to evaluate if it would
be important to actually have eTeX support in the = kernel. there is nearly
nothing that really must be done in a format (other = than loading hyphenation
patterns), thus even an output routine could be = loaded afterwards replacing
the current routine.

 > In addition, one can't find out what = additional primitives the core
 > would warrant if one never gets into a = serious state, and one can't
 > get into a serious state if one choses to = wait all the time for
 > non-existent features.


 >
 > I can tell you a dozen good reasons why it = would be an excessively
 > bad idea to declare Omega the default TeX = engine for LaTeX now.  I

agreed, but now is no here nor there. any default = engine needs to be stable
and maintained and basically feature frozen.  = whilst omega does not provide
such stability it is not a candidate.

 > can't give you a single reason why e-TeX = should not be declared the
 > default TeX engine for LaTeX _now_.

not agreed (uncertain).

 but to be honest, it is something i was = considering a few weeks ago at least
for everything in the xpackage area. as for the 2e = default engine I have my
reservations for the reasons outlined above. but then = encouraging people to
provide packages that use eTeX features might be a = first step in this
direction.

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5AC.79AA4700--