MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
            <4D77B73F.1000901@morningstar2.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <19831.50760.897917.747794@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Date:         Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:26:16 +0100
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: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: format?
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <4D77B73F.1000901@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Joseph Wright writes:
 > 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.

I don't think that this is what William meant. He was referring to the look
and feel of 2e LaTeX documents which often contain a preamble loading a dozen
or so additional packages. And to be honest if you subscribe to that basic
model of thirdparty development then latex3 wouldn't have that kind of code in
the kernel either. You are perfectly right that right now expl3.sty loads many
packages which all eventually would form a single kernel, but that isn't the
issue here.

frank
 > -- 
 > Joseph Wright
 >