Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard > > facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All > > that you really care about is that the information gets to the user, > > not how it gets to them. > > yes and no. we care that the information gets to the user but we > also care that it gets to the user in an "expected" way. I grant you > that there might be more freedom than requiring a certain facility > to be used. but what we do not accept, for example, is the idea that > the user has to manually look through source files to find > individual comments that may be hidden anywhere in literally several > thousand files. > > you may have read or listen to Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy: > there is this nice scene near the beginning in which the earth men > are told that it is their fault not to have looked on Alpha > Centaurus where the plans have been on display for the last 50 years > --- we are strongly opposed to a solution that could result in > something similar for LaTeX. And we don't like to have to fight over > "X is visible/non-visible enough for the user" and therefore want > some clear ground rules (restricted to the use in a specified > context).
Are you saying that if someone comes up with a technically superior method of informing the user of the modified status of the package (e.g. a telepathic notifier), a modifier still has to use the on-screen method? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
