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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  June 1997

LATEX-L June 1997

Subject:

on LaTeX, e-TeX, NTS & Omega projects (1/2)

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:14:04 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (252 lines)

I did send this message around midnight yesterday making sure that it
was well below 500 lines (something like 480) but forgot that the
header might get included; so this evening i found it again being
rejected by the listserv.

so here i try again this time in two parts
frank

------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The LaTeX, e-TeX, NTS & Omega projects: a composite response
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:05:36 +0200


i promised myself to write some comments to Phil's long message by the
end of this evening, so i better start. He brought up many important
points and opinions and at least with those where i disagree ...

let me first start by saying that one impression i had throughout the
mail was that Phil thought i suggested that e-TeX should incorporate
concepts found in omega. I don't. e-tex is e-tex with its goals its
research and its team and omega is omega with its goals, research and
team and neither project should or probably can jump over its own fences.

Philip Taylor writes:
 > [from SPQR]
 >
 > >> surely the present discussion shows whats missing? a solution to the
 > >> problem of multi-language hyphenation in the same paragraph?
 >
 > That is _one_ element that is missing; my question was intended to
 > provoke a rather fuller response!

well, Sebastian gave a crucial deficiency resolved by Omega --- one
that more or less shuts the door for every potential TeXlikesystem
user who is not using latin based alphabets or who needs more than one
language in the document.

 > There is no rivalry whatsoever. I have the greatest respect for John & Yannis's
 > work, but I cannot see how trying to merge the projects _at this stage_ would
 > be possible or even desirable: a small team works well together -- as the team
 > gets larger, it gets ever harded to achieve a consensus.

i wasn't asking for enlarging the team. my main claim is that there
are valid and stable solutions within the current omega and different
valid solutions with e-tex and that those could be brought together
(if you like by a completely different team and as small as you wish)
while the omega project as well as the e-tex project can research
further in those areas that are of interest to them and are not
resolved.

 > with Thanh's TeX2pdf/pdftex: I would far sooner that he continued to develop
 > his ideas independently, rather than trying to to "bring him under the e-TeX
 > umbrella" at this stage.

exactly, i don't want to have things under an "e-tex umbrella"

 > Let us see where the various projects lead, and
 > _then_ (perhaps) think about a synthesis of the best elements of each. NTS
 > is due to start in 1998: by the time we have a functional implementation,
 > we may be better placed to analyse e-TeX/Omega/TeX2pdf and develop a synthesis.

my claim is that e-tex and omega are at a point where we do have the
first stable results of what they lead to and it would be about time
to bring that what was achieved so far together. As such bringing
together takes time of its own, i'd expect that a stable pdf could be
incorporated as well (which could then be part of the for promotion
the combined version)

 > >> switching eTeX to Unicode would be nice...
 >
 > I do not believe that this will ever happen, nor do I regard it as desirable.

neither do i (unfortunately) --- give or take that we don't mean
unicode but really just a large enough unique internal encoding
(preferably close to unicode as this makes life easier in some respect
but isn't really the essential part of the change)

but again this is seeing the whole situation from the e-tex umbrella.

 > The primary desideratum of e-TeX is 100% compatibility with TeX; I do not
 > believe that that could be accomplished in a system which used Unicode.
 > Unicode is an option for NTS, not for e-TeX.

that is something i really don't understand. perhaps that is something
you really should look at it a little more closely. why is that
different to, say allowing for many mark registers, what kind of
compatibility do you fear you lose?

no, don't answer that one here unless it is short :-) but perhaps we
should go through this in SF.


 > [from Frank Mittelbach]

ah from me ;-)

 > >> but then a frozen version so that one could reliably use the features
 > >> in LaTeX and other formats.
 >
 > It is intended that e-TeX will be updated once a year, with no
 > feature being removed from a later version unless there is are
 > overwhleming reasons so to do. On that basis I would argue that it
 > is "frozen" enough, since LaTeX comes out twice as frequently.

but this is a different situation (i'm not talking about about real
bug fixes). LaTeX(2e) is coming out twice a year but we have stopped
modifications on the kernel as we did during the first release as at
that time some of the intended features where not in place yet.

others have explained by there is a difference in installing a new
latex version to updating the basis environment on which it is based
on.

so no i don't think that this is frozen enough. i think what you want
is as switch of the basis if at all and then give the users given
breathing space and the project teams (ie e-tex, omega, nts) time to
arrive at the next level of development (if any).

 > >> Phil has asked what features i miss that omega has. i'm not sure that
 > >> this was a serious question (you should know what your competing
 > >> successor is capable of, shouldn't you? :-)
 >
 > What it's capable of is not the issue; what features _you_ (the LaTeX
 > team) need is really the point, but you answer that next:

need for what and by whom? that really is the crucial question here. 99% of what
e-tex offers is something we do welcome but it is not just what we need for
developing it is what is necessary and helpful to the end user (and to the future
of TeX)

 > >> - full internal 16 bit (ie unicode support)
 > >> - thus true support for multi-lingual issues, eg proper hyphenation,
 > >> encoding support, rewriting support
 > >> - otp's
 >
 > In other words, Omega! But I find it difficult to reconcile this
 > with your own arguments adduced earlier, about the difficulty of
 > persuading people to use a new LaTeX predicated on e-TeX; I would
 > have thought that it might prove about 100 times harder to persuade
 > people to use a new LaTeX predicated on Omega, given that e-TeX itself
 > is predicated on complete compatibility with TeX whilst Omega rejects
 > compatibility in order to achieve more radical enhancements...

why do you find this so difficult? my main argument is that e-tex on
its own is something where most users don't see benefits in and the
same is true for omega on its own (although in the latter case there
are more visible advantages from day one and completely new groups
that would benefit by being able to use the system). but in
combination they are more likely to have the desired effect.

and much more so if major formats like latex would be ported to such a
combined version with immediate benefits to nearly everybody.

okay, you are wondering about a compromise of compatibility, but i
think this is at least partly a misunderstanding; i don't see that
such a combined version would be much different as far as
compatibility for old documents are concerned to the situation with
e-tex right now. doable (worth doing, for sure) and not a really
problem.

can you put forward what kind of compatibility you see compromised? or
again save it for SF after having looked into it a bit. I really think
you argue a bit from public statements that may have been given by the
omega team rather then from valid "real" data of what that means. In
other words, the fact that somebody may have said that he doesn't care
about compatibility doesn't necessarily mean that his product in fact
results in being incompatible.

so coming back to Sebastian's question of rivalry: have you ever run
omega to prove that point? if not, i think my argument that both
projects actually worked on orthogonal problems and that it is about
time to combine the fruits and use them (carefully and in a compatible
manner) becomes even stronger.

let me say one thing again:

with my latex development hat on (trying to tidy up what we have
right now and producing in some restricted areas (like marks)
something that is not yet here) i would welcome (in fact be delighted)
in being able to base the LaTeX kernel on a system that contains the
e-tex primitives.

but if omega and e-tex as of now would be equally available to the
public and i would have to make a decision between those two (and the
public would follow that decision) then i would (probably with a few
tears in my eyes) tend towards omega because it would solve more for
the end users and for the TeX community as a whole --- in opening up
the asian market and solving all (oops, most of) the language problems

now, omega and e-tex aren't in that position (omega even less than
e-tex probably) so i don't have to choose and i can't. and in fact i
don't want to because either decision would throw away the important
achievements of the other project.

therefore my plea to combine those stable parts *now* ---- meaning within one year
being productive

alternative right now seems to be staying with vanilla TeX and
implement further work on that level as well --- yes i do welcome
seeing a reimplementation of the current kernel with e-tex primitives
and i would support and encourage such a project a lot (similarly
development of add-on package) but it would be something that would
need to be done by people outside the ltx3 project as i couldn't put
our limited resources into that.

and this idea of best typeset with Omega-TeX, e-TeX,
e-TeX-version.1.3, ... really is a horror to me. Not for dedicated
applications but if it would become the standard situation.


 > I agree completely with Bernard's sentiments; at the moment, I feel it
 > is best that e-TeX, Omega and TeX2pdf evolve separately, each under the
 > control of a small, tightly-knit group; trying to pull them together
 > at this stage would simply result in friction, with each team pulling
 > in a different direction. Let's wait for them each to become mature,
 > and then look towards a synthesis.

IMHO they are mature as they can get (as far as the projects are concerned)
and again, yes if i would imagine you and John shut in a room on bread
and water until you reach a common understanding, i'm sure both of you
would rather starve then to give an inch :-)

but this is why i don't see either project being an umbrella for the
other, your interests are just so different.


 > [from Uwe]
 >
 > >> I think, there are not many users right *now*. *But* there is the
 > >> TeX-Live-CD version2, on which will be an e-TeX (or the announcement
 > >> is a lie...) and the new version of teTeX (0.9) will have an
 > >> e-TeX. There are quite a large number of people following *and*
 > >> updating with this distribution.
 >
 > >> So I expect the number of people actually having e-TeX will be
 > >> significantly rising in the *near future*.
 >
 > I agree; the takeup of e-TeX was not helped by there not being an
 > emTeX version, but Eberhard has his own work and life, and can't
 > be expected to bring out new versions just to help the e-TeX project.

no he can't but even if he would this is not enough. having an etex
within tetex is a step but the next step need to be taken as well,
such as having the proper formats coming with the setup. for example,
the new texlife cd has everything on it, but when i want to use latex
with e-tex i have to compile it myself and there is no direct support
for doing so.


 [ .... continued in next mail ]

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

September 2019
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