LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 2 Jun 2006 12:37:39 +0200
text/plain (66 lines)

 > > I wonder if it is best to have the ltnews in there in cronological order
 > > or better in reverse cronological order.

i said I wonder ... not I insist :-)
 > See below.
 > > not even sure it is best to have them all together.
 > * For example, I don't want to open upto 17 (seventeen!) files
 >   to find something. Thus I just call "texdoc ltnews" and ask
 >   the PDF viewer search function.

good point if the viewer wouldn't support searching several documents at once
(but it does) try Cntrl-shift-f --- still you are right about being easier to

one historical argument against is that the news files originally have
been intended for putting up on posting boards (one reason for using normally
only one page)

but i doubt anybody does that these days :-)

 > * Second advantage, the directory listing of TDS:doc/latex/base
 >   does look less cluttered.

how true :-)

 > > most people will be only
 > > interested in the latest information so reverse might be the best order
 > It would be easy to implement. But there are some reasons against:
 > * Natural order is chronological. The page and time axis show
 >   in the same direction.
 > * Confusion: If I look at books that deal with history, then
 >   I have never seen one that starts at the 21th century and
 >   ends at the big bang.


 > * Inconsistent: Look at the "Change History" of the LaTeX documentation
 >   (source2e, multicol, ...). Here you have already decided against
 >   reverse chronological order.

true too, but not concistent anyway: changes.txt is reverse chronological
order as well.

but you are right, the ltnews do serve these days a dual function a) to report
relevant information about the "current release" (which favors reverse order)
and b) as a historical information (which favors cronological order).

perhaps the compromise between the two is to make ltnew.pdf a full "historical
document and also provide ltnewsXX.pdf covering just the latest release

but then it isn't perhaps worth the extra effort. I'm fine with whatever you
think works best.

 > Yours sincerely
 >   Heiko <[log in to unmask]>