Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:29:22 +0200
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Am 22.06.18 um 10:59 schrieb Joseph Wright:
> We discussed this when I first raised the idea of a list. Unlike some
> other areas (e.g. Python code and CPAN), there are no formal
> requirements for distributing (La)TeX packages. More importantly, CTAN
> set their own approach independent of the LaTeX team.
> Thus the aim of a prefix database is necessarily more 'for information'
> than anything 'stronger'. I think if something was requested which
> looked extremely problematic, a registration request would be a good
> opportunity for discussion. Ultimately, however, the prefix is down to
> the package author: it's no good saying 'no we won't log it', only for
> the package to go to CTAN anyway but ending up that bit harder for other
> developers to see.
I haven't said that we should say "we don't log it" not normally anyway,
though, for something like "stats", I would think we should add that to
the list of reserved ones.
My point was more that guidance helps, and of course, in case of
problematical requests (in our opinion) a discussion with the author at
At least at the time of initial development it is fairly easy to change
a prefix (if you are lucky than basically by <@@=prefix> + 2-3 interface
> In the case in hand, whilst 'statistics' is quite general, it's also
> pretty long and there are a number of alternatives ('stats' or 'stat'
> the two most obvious).
As I said I would veto something like "stats", as for "statistics" it is
long and it might be the package name so it is probably ok.