> 3: Package is documented (!), reasonably stable, and is deemed the best,
> or one of the best, packages for the intended purpose. Yet the
> application is too specific that one could reasonably expect
> every distribution of TeX to carry it.
> Example: tipa as opposed to some other phonetic alphabets.
i think this agrees with Frank. its "2-applications"
> L: works under LaTeX
> OL: works under LaTeX 2.09
> P: works under plain TeX
> X: support application, OS specific
this would be interesting to try and maintain, but i don't think its very
practical. its just too much work. do you even *have* latex209 to test
under? i dont.
> - useful general hacks
> - class files for publishers and journals
> - other class files
> - letters
> - font related
> - language related
> - graphics
> - packages for special applications: Chemistry, Computer Science,
> Mathematics, Physics etc.
i think these could reasonably be supplied by the author of the
package, in the case of new packages
> PS: Where are the AMS macros/fonts in the category 2 list suggested
> by Sebastian?
my list was a delusion, since i also have supergroups of `languages'
and `fonts', and i am not very consistent about the
distinctions. thats why `french' wasnt there, its in lang2/french. ams
actually has its own supergroup, just to confuse further.