Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to
procedurally implement an underlying
sorry for joining late, but i was away without email access, as a result it is
a bit difficult to join in without possibly overlooking arguments already
presented, sorry if that is going to happen
Mark Rafn writes:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That's basically the idea. *If*
Walter Landry writes:
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the
validator is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it
were made more clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy
you? How would you change
Jeff Licquia writes in reply to Joe Moore:
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:45, Joe Moore wrote:
10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
different license, as long as that license honors the conditions in
Clause 7a, above.
This clause confuses me.
well, the
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an
5 matches
Mail list logo
