Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:35:58 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.2) with ESMTP id k52HZrnt004933 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:35:54 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k52HUpQB010002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:31:23 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k52A6JIH030170; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:53:50 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 1295729 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:53:50 +0200 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k52GroGU029123 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:53:50 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.183]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k52Gr61w028661 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:53:10 +0200 Received: from [84.169.146.132] (helo=morse.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu7) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML2Dk-1Fm72C05YR-0002bC; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:37:40 +0200 Received: by morse.mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 78DEB4ACFE; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:37:39 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20060427182251.GA23586@m0A023293.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> <20060530155648.GA16268@m0A023293.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> <20060531192925.GA7290@m0A023293.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> <17535.21403.129121.579232@morse.mittelbach-online.de> <20060601221001.GA21524@m0A023293.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:923c546e49b26a7485eda6910e23f403 Message-ID: <17536.5363.422042.304070@morse.mittelbach-online.de> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:37:39 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: LaTeX Release 2005/12/01 To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <20060601221001.GA21524@m0A023293.vpn.uni-freiburg.de> Precedence: list X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at proteosys.com Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2006 17:35:59.0003 (UTC) FILETIME=[029BDEB0:01C6866B] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4961 Heiko, > > I wonder if it is best to have the ltnews in there in cronological order > > or better in reverse cronological order. i said I wonder ... not I insist :-) > > See below. > > > not even sure it is best to have them all together. > > * For example, I don't want to open upto 17 (seventeen!) files > to find something. Thus I just call "texdoc ltnews" and ask > the PDF viewer search function. good point if the viewer wouldn't support searching several documents at once (but it does) try Cntrl-shift-f --- still you are right about being easier to use. one historical argument against is that the news files originally have been intended for putting up on posting boards (one reason for using normally only one page) but i doubt anybody does that these days :-) > * Second advantage, the directory listing of TDS:doc/latex/base > does look less cluttered. how true :-) > > most people will be only > > interested in the latest information so reverse might be the best order > > It would be easy to implement. But there are some reasons against: > * Natural order is chronological. The page and time axis show > in the same direction. > * Confusion: If I look at books that deal with history, then > I have never seen one that starts at the 21th century and > ends at the big bang. true > * Inconsistent: Look at the "Change History" of the LaTeX documentation > (source2e, multicol, ...). Here you have already decided against > reverse chronological order. true too, but not concistent anyway: changes.txt is reverse chronological order as well. but you are right, the ltnews do serve these days a dual function a) to report relevant information about the "current release" (which favors reverse order) and b) as a historical information (which favors cronological order). perhaps the compromise between the two is to make ltnew.pdf a full "historical document and also provide ltnewsXX.pdf covering just the latest release but then it isn't perhaps worth the extra effort. I'm fine with whatever you think works best. frank > > Yours sincerely > Heiko >