The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read
with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be
fixed?
| No.
| We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility.
| Or vice versa depending on your perspective.
Yes. Perhaps I was too concise.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:
The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read
with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be
fixed?
| No.
| We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility.
| Or vice versa
The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read
with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be
fixed?
| No.
| We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility.
| Or vice versa depending on your perspective.
Yes. Perhaps I was too concise.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:
The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read
with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be
fixed?
| No.
| We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility.
| Or vice versa
>
> The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read
> with <=1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be
> fixed?
| No.
| We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility.
| Or vice versa depending on your perspective.
Yes. Perhaps I was too
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote:
>
> >
> > The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read
> > with <=1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be
> > fixed?
>
> | No.
>
> | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility.
> | Or
