> 3: Package is documented (!), reasonably stable, and is deemed the best, > or one of the best, packages for the intended purpose. Yet the > application is too specific that one could reasonably expect > every distribution of TeX to carry it. > > Example: tipa as opposed to some other phonetic alphabets. i think this agrees with Frank. its "2-applications" > L: works under LaTeX > OL: works under LaTeX 2.09 > P: works under plain TeX > X: support application, OS specific this would be interesting to try and maintain, but i don't think its very practical. its just too much work. do you even *have* latex209 to test under? i dont. > - useful general hacks > - class files for publishers and journals > - other class files > - letters > - font related > - language related > - graphics > - packages for special applications: Chemistry, Computer Science, > Mathematics, Physics etc. i think these could reasonably be supplied by the author of the package, in the case of new packages > PS: Where are the AMS macros/fonts in the category 2 list suggested > by Sebastian? my list was a delusion, since i also have supergroups of `languages' and `fonts', and i am not very consistent about the distinctions. thats why `french' wasnt there, its in lang2/french. ams actually has its own supergroup, just to confuse further. sebastian