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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1840968122-1299696405=:95122"
Message-ID:  <630786.95122.qm@web82007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date:         Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:46:45 -0800
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: Paul Thompson <patjah@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: format?
To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de
In-Reply-To:  <4D77B73F.1000901@morningstar2.co.uk>
Precedence: list
Status: R

--0-1840968122-1299696405=:95122
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I think that is a good idea, since what is done by different packages really 
should simply be options.

 Paul Thompson


________________________________
From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK>
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:22:07 AM
Subject: Re: format?

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

--0-1840968122-1299696405=:95122
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">I think that is a good idea, since what is done by different packages really should simply be options.<br><div>&nbsp;</div>Paul Thompson<div><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Joseph Wright &lt;joseph.wright@MORNINGSTAR2.CO.UK&gt;<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wed, March 9, 2011 11:22:07 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: format?<br></font><br>
On 09/03/2011 17:09, Frank Mittelbach wrote:<br>&gt; I'm not so sure about your complaint about meaningless line-after-line<br>&gt; \usepackages, though. I was and is a simple interface but at least it ended up<br>&gt; with a clean specifcation what that particular 2e document needed.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; But yes, why not something better ... but then first step would be to come up<br>&gt; with suggestions what a "better" interface would be<br><br>Looking long-term, the idea (at least to me) is that a lot of stuff for<br>LaTeX3 should be in the kernel anyway. So a lot of the current<br>\usepackage stuff would be covered by built-in code or at least options.<br>-- <br>Joseph Wright<br></div></div></div>
</div></body></html>
--0-1840968122-1299696405=:95122--