[tex4ht] TeX4ht upgrading: doesn't work

William F Hammond gellmu at gmail.com
Tue Apr 2 03:27:10 CEST 2013

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Karl Berry wrote:

>>     I believe that there should be no issues with correct LaTeX2E
> I talked to Frank and Will about this at the last meeting.  If a
> document uses *only* core LaTeX features, then, yes, it could work in an
> L3-only format.  Both I and they think the number of such real-world
> documents is quite small.  I.e., that do not load, say, hyperref or url
> or ltugboat or ...
> I stand by my statement :).
>>     since Karl posted his comment I've yet to find an example
>>     that fails with expl3 loaded.  Am I missing something?
> I was responding to the original query about (what I took to be) a
> LaTeX3 format/program, not loading the LaTeX3 packages under LaTeX2e.
> That is completely different, and indeed, the LaTeX developers deserve
> much credit for making the LaTeX3 packages loadable under 2e and not
> breaking compatibility to any significant degree.  To my mind, that is
> the major reason why the L3 packages have met with a fair number of
> users.

I was insufficiently focused on the "only" in "L3-only format".

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that most of the commonly used 2E
packages and classes would be re-written under L3 before an L3-only
format became mainstream "latex"?

Have LaTeX Project spokespersons said otherwise?  Maybe I should ask there.

A separate question is whether an L3-only user-level document might be
indicated by something like \documentprofile[<options>]{<profile>}
rather than \documentclass for 2E.

          -- Bill

William F Hammond
Email: gellmu at gmail.com

More information about the tex4ht mailing list