LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:50:23 +1100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Richard Walker <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (25 lines)
I for one consider a change like this to be inevitable.
(I just didn't want to be the first one to say so.)

But the question then arises:  why e-TeX?  Why not Omega, an
e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ?

We could argue about which is `closest' to TeX (passes the TRIP test
and/or some other measures) but for LaTeX, why not go as far away as
possible?  If we are calling it LaTeX 3 and even _considering_
changing the underlying program, why not pick one (whether it exists
right now or _could_ exist once we decide exactly what we want) that
addresses most/all of the issues raised by all the years of experience
with the current LaTeX implementation?

I can think of good arguments for both extremes; this question seems
to be more political than technical.


Richard Walker                         [log in to unmask]
Department of Computer Science         Phone: (02) 6125 3785
The Australian National University     Intl: +61 2 6125 3785
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia          Fax:  +61 2 6125 0010