Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:21:38 +0200
> > latex1: a core tool provided by Them (eg graphics);
> > without all of these are incomplete
> > latex2: a generally agreed important tool package (eg calc)
> > latex3: a generally agreed important application package (eg
> > latex4: a package that works under the current LaTeX, has no
> > bad behaviour, but is not a `must have' (eg nassflow)
> > latex5: a package of unknown status, may or may not work,
> > whose author is not contactable any more
> "Not a 'must have'" seems to me usselessly aggressive to the package
> writer, at least if Graham's document is publicly released. Moreover,
> if somebody wants to do something and the "xyz" package
> exactly does what he needs, what is the use for him to know that the
> package has been classified by somebody as a "not a must have"?
> And for those who are not interested in what "xyz" package does,
> getting an opinion on it is useless too. So, why giving any opinion
> at all ?
I agree with Michel. I know for instance a chemisty package which isn't
written for plain TeX (acctually CONTeXT), but supports LaTeX (i.e. sty
files, ifx when loading PiCTeX and using the \f@size [latex2e] and
\@point [latex209]). This package would be latex4.
If an other package is designed for LaTeX it might be latex3 without
being any better.
'not must have' and 'must have' depends also from the point of view:
if I don't need e.g. chemical formulars, than these packages are not a
`non must have'(latex3-4). For chemists those are real 'must haves'