> Martin Schroeder <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > > On 2003-01-04 13:57:55 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > > > The format/executable combination that distribution vendors are to use > > > for the executables named `latex' and `pdflatex' is to be eTeX, > > > respectively PDFeTeX. For those that want to test out compatibility > > > > I doubt that this will happen for LaTeX, as this is very frozen > > now. LaTeX3 will run on Omega, and Omega will incorporate the > > best of eTeX. :-) > > I am not talking about what will happen in 10 years of time. I am > talking about what is crippling LaTeX development right now. In > contrast to a change to Omega, a change to e-TeX will not disturb any > existing styles and operation. e-TeX is stable and has been available > for years. Omega isn't stable, isn't documented properly and still > in constant flux. i'm inclined to agree with you, to an extent. (nb, speaking in a personal capacity, not hoping to represent project policy.) the problem is that there are two separate axes on which latex development is being hampered for want of extensions. the one you've not mentioned is multilingual-latex development: there's a lot of work going on in that area at present, and it's not clear that any significant step beyond today's babel is possible without omega-like facilities. you will have seen the "latex requirements" document, that appears in one of the omega development white papers: a significant part of that involves merging the relevant parts of e-tex extensions. a stable omega that provides those extensions would obviously be a "dream platform"; given that it's unlikely to be available soon, the question remains, "how should we proceed from here". i suspect we must develop a two-pronged attack, taking every possible precaution to ensure that when the dream platform _does_ appear, the two versions can be merged. i have severe misgivings about the actual practicality/efficacy of such precautions. robin