On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:51:53PM -0400, Laura Conrad wrote: > >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Robinson > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Richard> Increasingly, I begin to wonder if this should be seen as > Richard> a fork. I've been arguing the toss over a lot of these > Richard> new proposals, on the grounds that they might as well be > Richard> "done right" if at all, but I'm also beginning to wonder > Richard> whether I'd actually be prepared to update to software > Richard> that conforms to it, if/when anybody changes the code to > Richard> do so. > > I agree with this. One thing that seems to me missing from this > effort is a codification of exactly where this standard is > incompatible with previous versions of the standard. That is, not > where ABC which works with one or more current applications will fail > with a program designed to the new standard, but where something > written with a sincere desire to adhere to the standard will have to > be modified to adhere to the new standard. The '*' for right > justification seems like an example of this, and midline fields with a > continuation character before them may be another.
I haven't got round to checking this very hard yet, but I think some of the new special-character-sequences don't play in TeX (??has anybody checked this, can anybody say??, in which case any app. that uses this to print text fields will need to start checking them and translating. -- Richard Robinson "The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
