home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TeX 1995 July
/
TeX CD-ROM July 1995 (Disc 1)(Walnut Creek)(1995).ISO
/
tex-k
/
tex-k-archive.past
/
tex-k-archive.gz
/
tex-k-archive
/
000658_tim@maths.tcd.ie_Wed Jun 15 18:04:20 1994.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-10-11
|
1KB
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA29869
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <tex-k@cs.umb.edu>); Wed, 15 Jun 1994 18:04:20 -0400
Received: from hamilton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie
Via SMTP (FibreOptic) id aa21133; 15 Jun 94 16:25 BST
Subject: Re: latex2e vs. latex209 inputs
To: "K. Berry" <kb@cs.umb.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:25:33 (BST)
From: Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie>
Cc: tex-k@cs.umb.edu
In-Reply-To: <199406151025.AA13569@ra.cs.umb.edu> from "K. Berry" at Jun 15, 94 06:25:15 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 359
Message-Id: <9406151625.aa17435@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie>
>
> I also want to solicit people's opinions on (more or less) how long they
> think latex209 is going to stick around.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about latex209,
as I don't think that is a well-defined entity.
The compatibility mode of latex gives yet another latex209,
to add to Lamport, NFSS, NFSS2, etc.
It's impossible to keep up with all of them.