Print

Print


 > 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