0

This question already has an answer here:

As far as i know, these are alternative packages for playing with theorem-like environments.

What do you choose and why? What should be the de facto standard?

Regarding the same topic, are you able to port the following solutions to use the alternative package?

|improve this question

marked as duplicate by lockstep, diabonas, Stefan Kottwitz♦ Mar 27 '13 at 18:18

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • it's not clear to me that there should be a de facto standard. every publisher can have its own style, for which one or the other of these packages is more suitable. it would be a good thing if material could be easily migrated from one to the other (allowing authors to select a publisher based on suitability of content rather than presentation), but beyond that, legitimate variation should be recognized to exist. – barbara beeton Mar 27 '13 at 17:51
  • By the way, is that question linked up to date? – Manuel Mar 27 '13 at 19:35
  • @barbarabeeton: IMO, the main reason for tons of conflicts in LaTeX today is the lack of de facto standards. Standards are great, i don't know why the LaTeX community in particular dislikes them. – juliohm Mar 27 '13 at 21:38
  • @juliohm -- the problem is not the concept of standards, it's often how they are implemented. i've worked on standards committees. there is often a distinct problem getting everyone to agree that the same "x" is good for all. similarly, different communities have different traditions, with long histories, and divergence is not uncommon. for one example, compare the differences in u.k. and u.s. hyphenation of (the same) english words. there's ample justification for either choice, but a single "standard" won't suffice. – barbara beeton Mar 27 '13 at 21:59