Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 04/05/2011, at 9:02 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote: > > > coming from a comment in the question > > http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/17265, I wonder what the > > policy of the LaTeX project is concerning packages that work only > > under pdfTeX or make some assumptions that are not valid in the > > newer engines. Is it intended that such necessary fixes will be > > included in the packages or in the kernel, or will the fixes have to > > be provided in separate packages? > > Speaking for myself, I guess it largely depends. We've spoken here > before about adding a switch to deactivate inputenc in > XeLaTeX/LuaLaTeX but no proposals ever got off the ground. there's time enough for that, i would guess. afaict, karl's not yet making moves towards putting tl2011 together, which is when we said we would release a new latex version. > As for > amsmath, that's still maintained by the AMS, and I believe they're > currently working on an update to that at the moment -- it would be > best to contact them directly. (I'm not sure who the best contact > there would be.) (the ams have a tech-support address.) in answer to philipp's question i would doubt that the project has the wherewithal to dictate how people should write things. there were fine words spoken, on these lines -- discussing programming style, mostly, at the introduction of latex 2e. those fine words were, by and large, ignored; and back then the only "different" engine we had in play was tex 2.* so my rule of thumb would be, fixes _should_ be present in packages or the kernel, as appropriate, but one should accept that occasionally a "tidy-up" package is going to be needed. robin