Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:15:34 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0MFFW6C009045 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:15:33 +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 h0MEmktt001855; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:48:46 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C229.1C0F2F00" 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 h0MEKD6N028309; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:41:24 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 7832 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:41:24 +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 h0MEfO5f028537 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:41:24 +0100 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0MEmSVw028564 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:48:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from [212.227.126.155] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18bMB1-0004dE-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:48:27 +0100 Received: from [80.129.0.69] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18bM9H-0000Em-00 for LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:46:42 +0100 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id h0MEhTo20136; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:43:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <15915.60496.798501.907773@lin2.idris.fr> <15915.64379.146524.772099@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <15916.8635.946195.989212@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <15916.14608.340151.43815@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <15917.9945.473122.219613@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <15918.32649.326340.239302@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2003 15:15:35.0020 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CAAD2C0:01C2C229] 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: -2 () EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_03_05,X_AUTH_WARNING Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: LICR objects in math Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:43:29 +0100 Message-ID: A<15918.44561.293583.31657@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: LICR objects in math Thread-Index: AcLCKRzh/AKvs9ZXSYCgBnhPJjmiWA== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4470 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C229.1C0F2F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Kastrup writes: > > a) any obvious problems with this approach? > > Yes. You guys crack me up. woah. tell me where to send flowers to when the time has come. > The inputenc package is a vital part of > LaTeX. is it? you seem to be very keen on disabling it with your interesting interpretation of locale support for TeX. > If it does not work well without eTeX and complains about this > with an appropriate warning, that means that non-eTeX-2 should > officially be declared deprecated with due warning time. it works perfectly without eTeX. what does not work is an extension of = the concept (and one that is not extremely important) and that is what is = under discussion here). > My original proposal of doing such a declaration for the next LaTeX > release was violently opposed. you seem to have an understanding of violently that is quite different = from mine. same for the the word "opposing". if widely opposing for you means, there are people you do not agree 100% = with your point of view and they express that or dicuss consequences, then i = fear is is not getting you very far if you ever try to work with a team of = people. I wrote in reply to your policy thread: ---------------- > 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 > 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. ---------------- > Now you propose to do something > equivalent, only without prior warning, and actually without > announcing it anywhere properly? i don't see that the dicussion concerning LICR used in math and the = suggestion I brought forward for a possible package, are in any conflict with my = earlier statements repeated above. - there is no prior warning because there is nothing to warn about yet - there is no proper anouncement as there is nothing to announce = properly yet there is however a proposal for a package that would use eTeX features = (if possible) that clearly raises the importance of formally making an announcement of = a policy change as outlined by me, so what? it doesn't mean that such a statement needs to go out yesterday just = because you think it should. In fact it should not, as it has a lot of = implications for the good and worse and those need to be thought through further than = 3 or 4 angry mails by you > So we better come fast to grips about that matter. Even if it is > just a "likely" thing to happen, notice should get out in time. And > that would mean very soon. i agree with you on the "soon", especially if your information on tetex = is correct, which I assume is. but you could have parted with that earlier frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C229.1C0F2F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: LICR objects in math

David Kastrup writes:

 > >  a) any obvious problems with = this approach?
 >
 > Yes.  You guys crack me up.

woah. tell me where to send flowers to when the time = has come.

 > The inputenc package is a vital part = of
 > LaTeX.

is it? you seem to be very keen on disabling it with = your interesting
interpretation of locale support for TeX.

 > If it does not work well without eTeX and = complains about this
 > with an appropriate warning, that means = that non-eTeX-2 should
 > officially be declared deprecated with due = warning time.

it works perfectly without eTeX. what does not work is = an extension of the
concept (and one that is not extremely important) and = that is what is under
discussion here).

 > My original proposal of doing such a = declaration for the next LaTeX
 > release was violently opposed.

you seem to have an understanding of violently that is = quite different from
mine. same for the  the word = "opposing".
if widely opposing for you means, there are people = you do not agree 100% with
your point of view and they express that or dicuss = consequences, then i fear
is is not getting you very far if you ever try to = work with a team of people.

I wrote in reply to your policy thread:

----------------
   > 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

   > 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.
----------------

 > Now you propose to do something
 > equivalent, only without prior warning, = and actually without
 > announcing it anywhere properly?

i don't see that the dicussion concerning LICR used in = math and the suggestion
I brought forward for a possible package, are in any = conflict with my earlier
statements repeated above.

 - there is no prior warning because there is = nothing to warn about yet
 - there is no proper anouncement as there is = nothing to announce properly yet

there is however a proposal for a package that would = use eTeX features (if
possible)

that clearly raises the importance of formally making = an announcement of a
policy change as outlined by me, so what?

it doesn't mean that such a statement needs to go out = yesterday just because
you think it should. In fact it should not, as it has = a lot of implications
for the good and worse and those need to be thought = through further than 3 or
4 angry mails by you

 > So we better come fast to grips about that = matter.  Even if it is
 > just a "likely" thing to happen, = notice should get out in time.  And
 > that would mean very soon.

i agree with you on the "soon", especially = if your information on tetex is
correct, which I assume is. but you could have parted = with that earlier

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2C229.1C0F2F00--