Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:35:09 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h079Z66C015706 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:35:07 +0100 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 h079HVwO027131; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:17:32 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B630.119D4480" 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 h071Ghgo014520; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:10:59 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 5717 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:10:59 +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 h0790wTk017584 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:00:58 +0100 Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0797SEV024079 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:07:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from fwd09.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 18Vphn-0000cb-0H; Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:07:27 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (520018396234-0001@[217.80.160.90]) by fmrl09.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 18Vphe-1QPDs0C; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:07:18 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0797DPc017896 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:07:13 +0100 Received: (from dak@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h0797CmE017892; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:07:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20030107082032.GD15713@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> Lines: 45 References: <15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> <15897.49420.486809.50100@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <20030106222453.GA25307@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20030107082032.GD15713@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jan 2003 09:35:09.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[11CF02E0:01C2B630] X-Sender: 520018396234-0001@t-dialin.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -2.8 () IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:07:12 +0100 Message-ID: A X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK2MBIKd7DR/+AhSNiyD9P8A9TWeQ== From: "David Kastrup" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4406 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B630.119D4480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Martin Schroeder writes: > 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? > > 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. Nonsense. This would break not a single document. It would make those commercial distributions non-compliant. So the commercial distributors would have to face the fact that a) _future_ versions of LaTeX2e might not work with their distributions unless they updated them. b) more people might be developing styles that won't work with their software. Existing documents would not suffer unless you were to install a LaTeX2e version that did not work without eTeX (and that was the plan only for the 2004 release). But why would you upgrade your LaTeX to a non-functioning setup? > And what would the user gain from eTeX? Being able to install the newest versions of LaTeX2e also in the future, being able to use new styles and other stuff developed from people that sigh a sign of relief no longer having to fight with working around the ugliest shortcomings of TeX because the LaTeX2e team has decided to never admit progress. > Many are still using 2.09 anyway :-( And those could continue to use old versions of LaTeX2e or LaTeX2.09 if they wanted to. If they don't want new developments, nobody forces them to take a look at them. But that does not mean that there must be no new developments for those that would care for them. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B630.119D4480 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 2003-01-07 00:28:44 +0100, David Kastrup = wrote:
> > Do you know of a single document that would = fail if e-TeX was used?
>
> 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.

Nonsense.  This would break not a single = document.  It would make
those commercial distributions non-compliant.  = So the commercial
distributors would have to face the fact that

a) _future_ versions of LaTeX2e might not work with = their
distributions unless they updated them.

b) more people might be developing styles that won't = work with their
software.

Existing documents would not suffer unless you were to = install a
LaTeX2e version that did not work without eTeX (and = that was the plan
only for the 2004 release).  But why would you = upgrade your LaTeX to
a non-functioning setup?

> And what would the user gain from eTeX?

Being able to install the newest versions of LaTeX2e = also in the
future, being able to use new styles and other stuff = developed from
people that sigh a sign of relief no longer having to = fight with
working around the ugliest shortcomings of TeX = because the LaTeX2e
team has decided to never admit progress.

> Many are still using 2.09 anyway :-(

And those could continue to use old versions of = LaTeX2e or LaTeX2.09
if they wanted to.  If they don't want new = developments, nobody
forces them to take a look at them.

But that does not mean that there must be no new = developments for
those that would care for them.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B630.119D4480--