User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15)
            Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D738DB1.3020807@gmx.de>           
            <19831.22704.372331.894399@morse.mittelbach-online.de>           
            <56ED2B8C-74D6-4163-A98C-52B8CA052724@frycomm.com>
            <19831.46135.995130.266054@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:  <4D77B73F.1000901@morningstar2.co.uk>
Date:         Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:22:07 +0000
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de>
From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: format?
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <19831.46135.995130.266054@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On 09/03/2011 17:09, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> I'm not so sure about your complaint about meaningless line-after-line
> \usepackages, though. I was and is a simple interface but at least it ended up
> with a clean specifcation what that particular 2e document needed.
> 
> But yes, why not something better ... but then first step would be to come up
> with suggestions what a "better" interface would be

Looking long-term, the idea (at least to me) is that a lot of stuff for
LaTeX3 should be in the kernel anyway. So a lot of the current
\usepackage stuff would be covered by built-in code or at least options.
-- 
Joseph Wright