LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project

LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:46:45 -0800
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: format?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1840968122-1299696405=:95122"
From: Paul Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (914 bytes) , text/html (1577 bytes)
I think that is a good idea, since what is done by different packages really 
should simply be options.

 Paul Thompson



________________________________
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2