Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:39:52 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h06Ldn6C014023 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:39:50 +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 h06LO5EV002206; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:24:05 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5CC.2516C400" 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 h064ACd8008642; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:17:30 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5710 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:17:30 +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 h06LHUTk013551 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:17:30 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h06LNvEV002171 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:23:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from [212.227.126.162] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18Veiz-0003eP-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:23:57 +0100 Received: from [80.129.1.68] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18Veix-0003Kh-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:23:56 +0100 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id h06LNOx03246; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:23:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> <15897.49420.486809.50100@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2003 21:39:52.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[25602910:01C2B5CC] 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_02_03,X_AUTH_WARNING Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: A<15897.62412.171478.259884@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK1zCV9HtAYEdz+TL2l+4GKtKhqpA== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4402 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5CC.2516C400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Kastrup writes: > Frank Mittelbach writes: > > > I seriously doubt that there is much in terms of new functionailty > > that actually allows more functionalty in TeX. > > \savingdiscards is one. It is pretty much necessary for sane replay > and evaluation of special penalties. :-) in that case you better play with it first; this is not entirely = humorous, there are problems with the current implementation of that (and other = parts that appear to be useful when reading the documentation only. as for the rest of your message, please reread again what i wrote, in several points you have misunderstood what i said, or so it seems to me. > > 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. > > You are operating under the delusion that the average user is the one > who is generating formats. It is the distribution vendors. my argument has nothing to do with generating formats. but you don't buy = a new TeX or change to a different installation just because the internals = force you to without no benefit. > Well, then they need to get started at some time, and if one never > changes the policies, they won't get started. changing policy by supporting the use of etex is one thing and perhaps a = good thing, the policy of breaking latex use on vanilla tex is a different = one > > 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. > > Fine. So we have something to look forward to as the underlying > machinery for LaTeX4. However, there are a lot of problems we would > want to solve with LaTeX3. possibly, though not likely, pdftex and etex have matured faster and the features we are looking for could be implemented reasonably fast as = well. > > 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. > > The output routine related stuff can't wait that long. It will take > years until Omega is in a stable enough state that one can seriously > consider running a stable LaTeX off it. would it? it is unfortunately quite possible. but you can also argue this is a two-way situation, if there is a = reasonable clear set of target goals (implementation features) with a roadmap to implement them on one hand (call it eetex if you like with the = orthogonal omega bits ignored if you prefer that) then getting those implemented = would help latex development while at the same time might help eetex maturing > > 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 > > Which is why we need to declare a change of _policy_ instead of > _starting_ with breaking compatibility. I think that a LaTeX2e > successor should be possible based on e-TeX, and that the work on it > would only to a quite small degree be wasted once the hypothetical > situation of an ubiquitously available Omega sets in. is it possible that you disagree with yourself here? when you commented on me saying something about policy isprobably okay = but not putting stuff into the kernel you claimed: > If the base format does not contain the material to juggle insertions > in and out of boxes via \split and similar stuff, it contains almost > nothing. This stuff is hard core: it does not prescribe an output > routine, but it manages all the resources necessary for the same. > anyway etex is a minimum that doesn't help much but i agree a successor = should have at least that (perhaps even with corrected algorithms :-) but that = is a policy for 2e extensions not necessarily for a 2e kernel i have the impression that you do a bit of mixing up 2e kernel + 2e extensions 2e kernel + experimental 3e packages 3e prototype kernel > > 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. > > Except that packages interact better and more of them become > available as the programmers don't have to shoot themselves in the > foot as much as now. well, you know the trouble from your work on ctt, but users don't care = if programmers shoot themselves, that's an unfortunate truth. anyway it is certainly no harm in steering people in the right direction. > > > > 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) > > That is why I say one should as a first step declare a _policy_, and > only at a later time take breakage into account. fine, i don't think i ever expressed a problem with that. it seems to me (personally) quite a good move to a) encourage people to use etex = features in packages as well as b) formally suggesting that a complete LaTex = installation should provide for supporting such a usage. > I am not saying that e-TeX 1998 will always be sufficient for > everything, I am saying that it is insane not moving to a code base > which is both very much established, available and stable, simply > because it is not as much established and available than if one had > made this move already. now that seems to me something different again. here our backgrounds and experiences seems to differ quite a lot from mine. 2e nearly died = because we forced the use of T1 encoded fonts into the distribution and a large proportion of the user base (writing only english) saw no need to switch = to that new system. so again, are you talking 2e base or are you talking experimental = packages? the latter would at some point have a proto-type kernel that then indeed = also would only run under an extended TeX (whatever flavor). but it seems to = me that here you are already thinking again of a kernel for 2e using etex. > > > 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; > > They are real. I am working on critical edition work, and it will > require eTeX. If I can't fold back the changes I am doing into the > current LaTeX development, this work will get wasted. i understand that for your commision you are interested in using etex = features and of course it would be nicer to have some of it in the current kernel = but there i would draw the line (if there are no new arguments coming along) on the other hand, what do you mean by not being able to fold things = back into the LaTeX development? i wouldn't see that following. as i said in my = previous mail, for xpackages i see no problem whatsoever to use etex except that = i don't think a lot of it is of much use. by the way, i was talking about my concerns :-) > > > can't give you a single reason why e-TeX should not be declared > > > the default TeX engine for LaTeX _now_. > > > > not agreed (uncertain). > > Progress needs first steps. sure but that does not mean you default the kernel but you can default = new development. > > but then encouraging people to provide packages that use eTeX > > features might be a first step in this direction. > > 3/4 of all users will balk at replacing their standard formats and > won't use packages that would require so, or that will only work when > calling `elatex' as an executable name instead of `latex': it would > require them to change their complete system and TeX shells and other > stuff. ahh and you think they are more likely to do that if ltnewsxx says we = consider the machine for latex being etex???? i don't. i do see a chance for a) encouraging development in that = direction as well as talking to vendors in parallel (the latter preferably by having support from groups like DANTE etc) on the other hand for that formal = switch i would still like to switch to something better than etex > This is something that requires very little actual work, but it is > something the distribution vendors need to do. it does on installations where there is nothing like etex > So we need to make this a policy. People are free to comply or not, > but there will come a point of time when it might be better for them > if they did so. It is only fair to give them due warning, and I want > this warning out with the next LaTeX2e release. reasonable request, with the "this" in "make this a policy" in my = opinion still a bit vague. frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5CC.2516C400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Proposed change of policy

David Kastrup writes:
 >         = Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG> = writes:
 >
 > > I seriously doubt that there is much = in terms of new functionailty
 > > that actually allows more = functionalty in TeX.
 >
 > \savingdiscards is one.  It is pretty = much necessary for sane replay
 > and evaluation of special = penalties.

:-) in that case you better play with it first; this = is not entirely humorous,
there are problems with the current implementation of = that (and other parts
that appear to be useful when reading the = documentation only.

as for the rest of your message, please reread again = what i wrote, in
several points you have misunderstood what i said, or = so it seems to me.

 > >   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.
 >
 > You are operating under the delusion that = the average user is the one
 > who is generating formats.  It is the = distribution vendors.

my argument has nothing to do with generating formats. = but you don't buy a new
TeX or change to a different installation just = because the internals force you
to without no benefit.

 > Well, then they need to get started at some = time, and if one never
 > changes  the policies, they won't get = started.

changing policy by supporting the use of etex is one = thing and perhaps a good
thing, the policy of breaking latex use on vanilla = tex is a different one

 > > 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.
 >
 > Fine.  So we have something to look = forward to as the underlying
 > machinery for LaTeX4.  However, there = are a lot of problems we would
 > want to solve with LaTeX3.

possibly, though not likely, pdftex and etex have = matured faster and the
features we are looking for could be implemented = reasonably fast as well.

 > > 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.
 >
 > The output routine related stuff can't = wait that long.  It will take
 > years until Omega is in a stable enough = state that one can seriously
 > consider running a stable LaTeX off = it.

would it? it is unfortunately quite possible.

but you can also argue this is a two-way situation, if = there is a reasonable
clear set of target goals (implementation features) = with a roadmap to
implement them on one hand (call it eetex if you like = with the orthogonal
omega bits ignored if you prefer that) then getting = those implemented would
help latex development while at the same time might = help eetex maturing

 > > 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
 >
 > Which is why we need to declare a change = of _policy_ instead of
 > _starting_ with breaking = compatibility.  I think that a LaTeX2e
 > successor should be possible based on = e-TeX, and that the work on it
 > would only to a quite small degree be = wasted once the hypothetical
 > situation of an ubiquitously available = Omega sets in.

is it possible that you disagree with yourself = here?

when you commented on me saying something about policy = isprobably okay but not
putting stuff into the kernel you claimed:

 > If the base format does not contain the = material to juggle insertions
 > in and out of boxes via \split and similar = stuff, it contains almost
 > nothing.  This stuff is hard core: it = does not prescribe an output
 > routine, but it manages all the resources = necessary for the same.
 >

anyway etex is a minimum that doesn't help much but i = agree a successor should
have at least that (perhaps even with corrected = algorithms :-) but that is a
policy for 2e extensions not necessarily for a 2e = kernel

i have the impression that you do a bit of mixing = up

  2e kernel + 2e extensions

  2e kernel + experimental 3e packages

  3e prototype kernel

 > > 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.
 >
 > Except that packages interact better and = more of them become
 > available as the programmers don't have to = shoot themselves in the
 > foot as much as now.

well, you know the trouble from your work on ctt, but = users don't care if
programmers shoot themselves, that's an unfortunate = truth. anyway it is
certainly no harm in steering people in the right = direction.

 >
 > >  > 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)
 >
 > That is why I say one should as a first = step declare a _policy_, and
 > only at a later time take breakage into = account.

fine, i don't think i ever expressed a problem with = that. it seems to me
(personally) quite a good move to a) encourage people = to use etex features in
packages as well as b) formally suggesting that a = complete LaTex installation
should provide for supporting such a usage.

 > I am not saying that e-TeX 1998 will always = be sufficient for
 > everything, I am saying that it is insane = not moving to a code base
 > which is both very much established, = available and stable, simply
 > because it is not as much established and = available than if one had
 > made this move already.

now that seems to me something different again. here = our backgrounds and
experiences seems to differ quite a lot from mine. 2e = nearly died because we
forced the use of T1 encoded fonts into the = distribution and a large
proportion of the user base (writing only english) = saw no need to switch to
that new system.

so again, are you talking 2e base or are you talking = experimental packages?
the latter would at some point have a proto-type = kernel that then indeed also
would only run under an extended TeX (whatever = flavor). but it seems to me
that here you are already thinking again of a kernel = for 2e using etex.

 > >  > 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;
 >
 > They are real.  I am working on = critical edition work, and it will
 > require eTeX.  If I can't fold back = the changes I am doing into the
 > current LaTeX development, this work will = get wasted.

i understand that for your commision you are = interested in using etex features
and of course it would be nicer to have some of it in = the current kernel but
there i would draw the line (if there are no new = arguments coming along)

on the other hand, what do you mean by not being able = to fold things back into
the LaTeX development? i wouldn't see that following. = as i said in my previous
mail, for xpackages i see no problem whatsoever to = use etex except that i
don't think a lot of it is of much use.

by the way, i was talking about my concerns :-)


 > >  > can't give you a single = reason why e-TeX should not be declared
 > >  > the default TeX engine for = LaTeX _now_.
 > >
 > > not agreed (uncertain).
 >
 > Progress needs first steps.

sure but that does not mean you default the kernel but = you can default new
development.

 > > but then encouraging people to provide = packages that use eTeX
 > > features might be a first step in = this direction.
 >
 > 3/4 of all users will balk at replacing = their standard formats and
 > won't use packages that would require so, = or that will only work when
 > calling `elatex' as an executable name = instead of `latex': it would
 > require them to change their complete = system and TeX shells and other
 > stuff.

ahh and you think they are more likely to do that if = ltnewsxx says we consider
the machine for latex being etex????

i don't. i do see a chance for a) encouraging = development in that direction as
well as talking to vendors in parallel (the latter = preferably by having
support from groups like DANTE etc) on the other hand = for that formal switch i
would still like to switch to something better than = etex

 > This is something that requires very little = actual work, but it is
 > something the distribution vendors need to = do.

it does on installations where there is nothing like = etex

 > So we need to make this a policy.  = People are free to comply or not,
 > but there will come a point of time when = it might be better for them
 > if they did so.  It is only fair to = give them due warning, and I want
 > this warning out with the next LaTeX2e = release.


reasonable request, with the "this" in = "make this a policy" in my opinion
still a bit vague.

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B5CC.2516C400--