Uwe Lueck <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Somewhat contrary to Will: the "endorsed" packages needn't be loaded > unless the user chooses an option that needs a certain package. This > way such an interface would "support" or "cover" certain packages, > rather than "endorsing" some. agreed. and (from reading the docs) there seems no reason why the average package-writer-on-the-street should not write his own interfaces-pwots-package to tie in with interfaces. (note, i've not actually read the code yet, so i may be wrong here. > This also reminds me of memoir.cls, "endorsing" (copying) certain > "standard" packages; yet I have never studied by which commands the > features of those packages are accessed by the user. memoir uses the code of packages that peter wilson wrote as he was designing ... memoir. i don't think i would have spotted the purpose of the packages if peter hadn't occasionally mentioned it when submitting packages. as a development strategy, it seems quite neat, to me ... but it does make faq answer-writing a little tortuous: "you can use memoir or koma-script or package x, y or z to do this; package y is actually part of memoir". robin