References: <201805042236.w44MaTV0010317@freefriends.org>
            <CAP7DCDe1M76vttVX6-yyYFcOf4caxewJsNcP61F-jHXDieWJpw@mail.gmail.com> <87muxd2db0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
            <20180507212753.GA69330@phare.normalesup.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Message-ID:  <46b34fa3-11a5-f90d-893f-3c84ca0a9457@gmx.net>
Date:         Tue, 8 May 2018 00:24:46 +0200
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:         Juergen Fenn <jfenn@GMX.NET>
Organization: juergenfenn.de
Subject: Re: bibtex futures: url, doi, ?
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <20180507212753.GA69330@phare.normalesup.org>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: R

Am 07.05.18 um 23:27 Uhr schrieb Arthur Reutenauer:
> If anything, the comparatively slow pace of
> development of BibTeX & al. has contributed to its format becoming
> standard.

I think that's a good point. Given the pace of development in LaTeX
nowadays, I wonder whether this is the way to build a new standard. Who
cares about latexrelease, \UseRawInputEncoding, etc. after all? Most
users rely on the idea that LaTeX is stable and will not break. That a
given input will always produce the same output. No criticism at taking
LaTeX further, none at all, but we should probably say it much louder to
the general public that something has changed about the pace of
development as opposed to what it used to be in order to prevent
disappointment.

Regards,
Jürgen.