package vs. format?

[Joachim Schrod]

Karl wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify our examples a bit: babel is a package, right, not a format?

Yes. It's supposed to be a generic package, i.e., the macro files are
normally placed in tex/generic/babel/. (`Normally' because the
current babel distribution has an error that prevents the usage of
most of its macro files with Plain TeX. But that should be possible
again with the next version, according to Johannes. :-)

> I added this text to try to define these terms a bit more clearly:
> 
>     The \abbr{TDS} specifies that macros are stored in separate directories,
>     segregated by format and package, a `package' here being simply one or
>     more {\TeX} input files generally containing only macro definitions, and
>     a `format' being a usefully \path|\dump|-able package.
> 
> Actually, it might be good to use a different term for the macro
> \replaceable{package}, since it's at odds with our (traditional) use of
> `package' elsewhere, but I can't think of anything decent.

Why is it at adds with our (traditional) use? It _is_ the traditional
`package' term, isn't it?

I'd like to see `distributed together' somewhere in the sentence
above, perhaps after `input files'. But then, perhaps one should make
two sentences. Btw, is it really `usefully', addressing `\dump-able'?
Isn't it more the `\dump-able package' and thus `useful'?

Sorry, still didn't find the time to read 0.100 thoroughly. But in my
scetchy reading I stumbled over the location of libkpathsea -- surely
.../lib/ instead of .../info/.

Cheers,
	Joachim

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod			Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany