Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:39:23 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h078dH6C015553 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:39:22 +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 h078MvEV013102; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:22:57 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B628.473E2F80" 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 h071GhX4014520; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:15:02 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5123 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:15:02 +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 h078F2Tk015922 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:15:02 +0100 Received: from relay-2.kkf.net (relay-2.kkf.net [62.8.210.31]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with SMTP id h078LVEV012823 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:21:32 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 6998 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2003 08:20:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO artinet.artcom-gmbh.de) (62.145.22.162) by 0 with SMTP; 7 Jan 2003 08:20:55 -0000 Received: (from uartcom@localhost) by artinet.artcom-gmbh.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h078L3t26692 for LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE!LATEX-L; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:21:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from artcom8 by artinet.artcom-gmbh.de; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:21 MET In-Reply-To: References: <15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> <15897.49420.486809.50100@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20030106222453.GA25307@lucien.kn-bremen.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jan 2003 08:39:23.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[47ABBE60:01C2B628] mail-followup-to: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -3 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT >received: by artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de (Smail3.2 #1) id m18VoyP-000de0C; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:20:33 +0100 (CET) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 09:20:32 +0100 Message-ID: A<20030107082032.GD15713@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK2KEfO1CCeIUosQd2TIQFb8N4ngQ== From: "Martin Schroeder" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4405 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B628.473E2F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-01-07 00:28:44 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Do you know of a single document that would fail if e-TeX was used? No. But to quote your proposal: "The format/executable combination that distribution vendors are to use for the executables named `latex' and `pdflatex' is to be eTeX". That would break _all_ documents when the distribution/installation doesn't contain eTeX, as is the case for all commercial distributors. And what would the user gain from eTeX? Many are still using 2.09 anyway :-( Best regards Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de/calendar/2003/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B628.473E2F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Proposed change of policy

On 2003-01-07 00:28:44 +0100, David Kastrup = wrote:
> Do you know of a single document that would fail = if e-TeX was used?

No.

But to quote your proposal: "The = format/executable combination
that distribution vendors are to use for the = executables named
`latex' and `pdflatex' is to be eTeX". That = would break _all_
documents when the distribution/installation doesn't = contain
eTeX, as is the case for all commercial = distributors.

And what would the user gain from eTeX? Many are still = using
2.09 anyway :-(

Best regards
        = Martin
--
          &nbs= p;  http://www.tm.oneiros.de= /calendar/2003/

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B628.473E2F80--