Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.
there's time enough for that, i would guess. afaict, karl's not yet
making moves towards putting tl2011 together, which is when we said we
would release a new latex version.
> 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.)
(the ams have a tech-support address.)
in answer to philipp's question i would doubt that the project has the
wherewithal to dictate how people should write things. there were fine
words spoken, on these lines -- discussing programming style, mostly, at
the introduction of latex 2e. those fine words were, by and large,
ignored; and back then the only "different" engine we had in play was
so my rule of thumb would be, fixes _should_ be present in packages or
the kernel, as appropriate, but one should accept that occasionally a
"tidy-up" package is going to be needed.