I vote against \documenttype When switching from 2.09 to 2e, it was very confusing to have the two initiation strings so similar. It was hard to remember which was which, and I still sometimes need to look them up. If possible, it would be nice to have something quite different: \startdoc \docinit \initdocument Anything which sounds like the start of a document, but which is different from 2e, would be good. Paul Thompson Division of Biostatistics Washington University School of Medicine St Louis, MO 63108 314-747-3793 25 Signal Hill Blvd Belleville, IL 62223-1650 618-394-1246 ----- Original Message ---- From: William F Hammond <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:11:15 PM Subject: Re: Key points of LaTex3 Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> writes: > I'd imagine that LaTeX3 documents will start with something other than > \documentclass (let's call it \documenttype, for arguments sake). Given > the likely size of a LaTeX3 kernel, essentially the entire 2e kernel > could also be included without making it all that much bigger. If the > first line of the file is \documenttype, the 2e stuff is never used. On > the other hand, if \documentclass is found, the new kernel "bails out", > runs the current 2e code and the file is processed as a 2e document. I'd like to suggest that \documenttype, consistent with usage in the gellmu project, be reserved for a document under an abstract LaTeX-like markup instance that is equivalent to a document instance under an SGML (or XML) document type. I think something like \Documentclass (upper case) would make more sense for new regime documents written in LaTeX the typesetting language Cheers. -- Bill