Wed, 4 May 2011 05:32:19 -0700
|
It's always been the "policy" of The LaTeX Collective, meeting in great hall of
the LaTeX Parliament, to allow developers to do as they wish.
That is, you can't have a policy if you don't have central direction. LaTeX/TeX
is open-source. The developers must do as they wish. There is no there there.
Paul Thompson
________________________________
From: Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 4, 2011 7:06:28 AM
Subject: Re: Policy regarding engine specific fixes
On 04/05/2011, at 9:02 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> coming from a comment in the question
>http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/17265, I wonder what the policy of the
>LaTeX project is concerning packages that work only under pdfTeX or make some
>assumptions that are not valid in the newer engines. Is it intended that such
>necessary fixes will be included in the packages or in the kernel, or will the
>fixes have to be provided in separate packages?
Speaking for myself, I guess it largely depends. We've spoken here before about
adding a switch to deactivate inputenc in XeLaTeX/LuaLaTeX but no proposals ever
got off the ground. As for amsmath, that's still maintained by the AMS, and I
believe they're currently working on an update to that at the moment -- it would
be best to contact them directly. (I'm not sure who the best contact there would
be.)
Cheers,
-- Will
|
|
|