> [...] it means we really need only focus on namespaces for *support*
> packages.
Exactly. Additionally, we should ensure that `main' macro packages
use a prefix (or a set of prefixes, if useful) for auxiliary stuff
consistently.
> Besides, retrofitting namespaces into primary packages may break
> documents that call low-level macros to fix a particular issue --
> we're not supposed to do it, but we do (and I'll admit, you'll find
> an occasional "....@reset" in my documents).
Hmm. This is a difficult topic. Ideally, we shouldn't care about
this at all, preferring a clean implementation. In other words, only
the documented macros should have unmodifiable names. For backwards
compatibility we could retain the `original' macros under a different
package name (cf. -mdoc and -mdoc-old).
> That leaves us with the nature of the namespaces themselves. [...]
I don't have any preference. It would be a good start to simply
document the prefixes of the main and auxiliary macro packages which
are floating around, additionally looking for (and documenting)
irregularities.
Any takers?
BTW, a `prefix' in the above sense can be a special character too,
located somewhere inbetween:
foo*bar
foo:bar
foo!bar
f...@bar
Again, it would be great if someone documents that.
Werner
