> Good news, I think. Formerly, in the discussion previous to the
 > meeting in Tsukuba, Omega was only *another* possibility, even in your
 > messages. (In other words, I didn't misinterpret the Robin's opinion
 > as the team's opinion, I just included a "deprecated" opinion
 > ;-) ) Now Omega is the main candidate (if the suggested improvements
 > are fulfilled in a successor, of course) by far.

well yes, but what i was indicating in my last message is that i wont be able
to put as much time into it than i had originally hoped --- so it is up to you
(plural) to help or even make it happen.

as i said, we have covered a lot of ground in Metz so there are specs (though
incomplete) and i wouldn't mind seeing discussions on those on a broader scale
(either on this list or elsewhere). problem is that i don't know when i will
find the time to make those specs available (some of them exist only in John's
scrapbook and as huge jepg's since i photographed the pages :-)

and i don't know what the state of the whole enterprise is (at the other side
of the world that is --- John wanted to put some students onto it to test
certain ideas) that's something that needs finding out. People seriously
interested in putting more than one or the other email into it should indicate
that; we might then be able to to get something going after all

frank


ps on the more easier aspects of a future LaTeX (as it isn't so much depending
on the underlying formatter): has anybody ever bothered to look at the new
frontmatter stuff that i presented in Metz and put onto the WWW just before
the holiday time? if so i would be interested in some comments; personally i
thought it does its job rather well, but not hearing anything either way makes
me wonder ...