Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:30:49 +0100 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Will,
> I know you've written about this before, but I think I've lost the
> post (or rather, never received it and read it through the archives at
> some stage) where you go into detail about your thoughts on this
> matter.
I'll try to find them. Right now I'm hearing Berg's Wozzeck, so
I'm not sure I'n in the mood ;-).
But one of my concerns was related to the number of specifications:
> probably the time to discuss things again. I think the recent letters
> by Morten, Joseph and I on the different "argument specifications"
> showed that there are many different cases to consider, and also lots
> of scope for different solutions.
Many, too many. This might lead to a combinatorial explosion.
Another point was the inconsistency in the prefix identifying
the module (I proposed something like \module:name:suffix, but
I'm not sure this is feasible because how : is handled).
(Unfortunately I'm busy and very likely I'll be busy in the
near future, and I'm a lot more interested in LaTeX + LuaTeX,
to be honest.)
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.tex-tipografia.com
|
|
|