LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  March 2011

LATEX-L March 2011

Subject:

Re: format?

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:38:40 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (127 lines)

Arno Trautmann writes:
 > I guess this question is raised from time to time $,1rs(B now I am asking ;)
 > As far as I understand, there is still no own LaTeX3 format because the
 > code just is not ready. But expl3 is more or less stable and some
 > important packages (e.g. fontspec) make heavy use of it causing many
 > people to load expl3 at the beginning of their document. As this is
 > somewhat time-consuming, Philipp Stephani suggested about a month ago on
 > the lualatex-dev list the introduction of a "LaTeX 2.2" format with
 > expl3 and xpackages (and fontspec) preloaded.
 > 
 > So what is the "official" meaning of the LaTeX3 team? Are there any
 > plans for a test format? Or is it not intended/possible/ ?

There has been already some discussion on this with various suggestions and
I'm a little late in joining the club, but here we go.

In my opinion there are a number of factors that need to be weight against
each other.


speed was mentioned as a factor
===============================

well, on the old machine I'm currently using running a manual load of expl3,
xparse, template and xcoffins takes something like

real    0m0.511s
user    0m0.449s
sys     0m0.027s

give or take, ie around half a second. Now I can remember using TeX when took
half a minute to typeset a single page so I can't really get very much excited
saving half a second but ... :-)


visual sign of activity was mentioned
=====================================

now to me that has a higher rating. The question though is, would an
additional format actually provide this?

In my opinion only if the format is more than just a random collection of
additional packages to speed up usage for testing and if it is "relatively"
stable so that people actually "use" it.

I said "relatively" stable. By that I mean that overall the additional
functionality provided is something we feel is "likely" to available in LaTeX3
even if we currently make no guarantee and occasionally update/change things
so that packages based on expl3 need to follow to work.

In my opinion base "expl3" by now provides this stability at least if we are
careful enough not to start adding arbitrarily add functionality without
initial experimentation as xpackage (as there was recently some tendency). So
in this respect a format that provides LaTeX2e + expl3 + a few carefully
chosen xpackages (eg xbase) would fit this bill.



adding additional external package was mentioned
================================================

sorry no. in my eyes that would be counter productive. any package that we add
here should pass the test:

 - we feel that this is a candidate (from interface perspective) for LaTeX3 
   (the occasional change of mind not withstanding)

 - it is fully implemented in expl3 and it is properly tested and documented
   (ignoring that to my standard that rules out all or most of our code right
   now :-))

And none of the suggested packages mentioned fit that bill, not even fontspec
I would claim at this point in time.

I would probably make an exception for fixltx2e because this is fixing the 2e
kernel but that's about it (if at all).



processability of documents was not mentioned
=============================================

one point I was missing so far in the dicussion. By that I mean that I
wouldn't want to force people to have to use this format to run documents and
in the opposite direction I wouldn't want documents which have been written
using the format not to work on an installation that doesn't have this format
around.

I'm a strong believer that a document should state what it needs, 2e has
proven successful because it stopped all that mess with a dozen different
formats all having different code loaded and where you had to deduce from the
content of a document what format to use to process it.

Now you can say that if somebody starts of  the document with

\usepackage{expl3,xparse,template} 

say then everything will be fine whether or not the document will be produced
by ordinary 2e format or 2x.

But history will tell us that what is likely to happen is that people start
writing documents that will not \RequirePackage/\usepackage

And I don't like to see a repeat of what happened when we introduced iLaTeX
nfssLaTeX, nfss2latex ... in the early '90

there are a couple of possibilities how to guard against this at least to some
extend, but it would need some thought and preparation


a 2x format as a promoted default wasn't mentioned
==================================================

a step further to the discussion would be to start promoting a 2x format that
is 2e + expl3 but expl3 only sitting dormant usable only if explicitly
requested by the document. There is a danger of 2e becoming instable this way
but this could probably be mitigated. Something to think about.



--------------------------------

in summary I think that the time is ripe to do something like this, but I
still maintain that it needs to be carefully done to not convey the wrong
message or lead to a mess incompatible formats and unprocessable documents
 
frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager