Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([213.139.130.197]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:52:19 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0KAqHsM022483 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:52:18 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0KAna17005029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:49:36 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0JN6O97030737; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:49:34 +0100 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 172976 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:49:34 +0100 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 n0KAnYct032212 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:49:34 +0100 Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n0KAnKNG021717 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:49:24 +0100 Received: from [139.222.131.131] (helo=ueams02.uea.ac.uk) by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LPEAa-00043U-F3 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:49:20 +0000 Received: from [139.222.114.191] by ueams02.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LPEAa-0007T9-Eh for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:49:20 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <49758499.5080004@morningstar2.co.uk> <68c491a60901200152y55297cc3wa784e4082ceb5e3f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <4975AC30.4080409@morningstar2.co.uk> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:49:20 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Joseph Wright Subject: Re: Key points of LaTex3 To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE In-Reply-To: <68c491a60901200152y55297cc3wa784e4082ceb5e3f@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-ProteoSys-SPAM-Score: -2.599 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 213.139.130.197 Return-Path: owner-latex-l@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2009 10:52:19.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A412500:01C97AED] Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5600 Martin Schröder wrote: > However, most of these aims bring no direct benefit for the user, > while other areas where LaTeX is sorely showing it's age, e.g. > hyperref, are missing. I think any LaTeX3 release without a direct > integration of hyperref's features will not attract many users. The > same goes for document classes (e.g. KOMA) and a much better > integration of utf8 and fonts. Perhaps I should have been more explicit about how I see the user benefits coming out. It's not clear what will actually happen about user syntax, so I think for the moment that has to be left out of the equation. However, point (2) in my list covers a LOT of things. I'd expect the expanded kernel to include things like hyperref, everything that KOMA/memoir can do, and probably a lot more (for example, I'd consider biblatex, things like critical edition tools, etc.). Things like UTF handling and a better font interface are also, I'm sure, in mind. The point about separating out design, code and use also means that the various "hacks" you need at the user level to achieve simple things (for example, altering \@biblabel comes to mind as a pain) should be a lot easier. -- Joseph Wright