I have realized that a detail was missing. There is an issue with spaces (ie parsing I think): a space at one side or at both sides of "V", as in this statement 

PLOT(TEXT([1., 2.], `#mi( "V" )`));

seems needed to get the double quotes in Maple 12.01:

But without spaces:

PLOT(TEXT([1., 2.], `#mi("V")`));

no double quotes are displayed. This effect seems unrelated to Maple 11 vs 12.

This difference between Maple 11.02 and 12.01 occurs here:

PLOT(TEXT([1., 2.], `#mi("V")` ));

Ie, in Maple 11.02 it is the same as with the non-quoted version:

PLOT(TEXT([1., 2.], `#mi(V)` ));

but in Maple 12.01 double quotes are displayed.

This difference between Maple 11.02 and 12.01 occurs here:

PLOT(TEXT([1., 2.], `#mi("V")` ));

Ie, in Maple 11.02 it is the same as with the non-quoted version:

PLOT(TEXT([1., 2.], `#mi(V)` ));

but in Maple 12.01 double quotes are displayed.

is a "two-dimensional" format. Ie, it does not keep 3D information.

And the visit of Doug to Maplesoft HQ will be a prize for Maplesoft itself.

Adding charges for shipping, customs, taxes, credit card administration, etc, it amounts to get it here a figure several times the US price of $10.85. Besides the fact that salaries are many times lower than in the US.

Adding charges for shipping, customs, taxes, credit card administration, etc, it amounts to get it here a figure several times the US price of $10.85. Besides the fact that salaries are many times lower than in the US.

I find that most people tend to reproduce what they have learned first. So, if eg someone was told to use 'linalg' in a course, by an advisor or a colleague, there are high chances that he will continue using it as long as it works, independently of whether he later happens to cross with one of those top-ten-after-google tutorials. In particular as those tutorials are written in English and most students prefer learning materials in their own language.

It may be a decent start, but my guess is that it will have a very small effect for several years in reducing the number of requests about the use of deprecated packages to Mapleprimes or elsewhere. 

Anyway, it is an experiment worth trying if statistics are made to measure such effect.

Just as an example, during the period that I was "ambassador" of Maplesoft in Argentina (1994-1998 aprox), I have tracked hundreds of sites where Maple was used, for courses and/or research. Most of them using unlicenced copies. And obviously all those course material was in (Argentinian) Spanish. Along these years, Maplesoft was unable to make something as simple as setting a working sales channel for those individuals/institutions here who wanted to purchase licences.

Clearly, Maplesoft does not have the capacity not the interest to track and reach all the sites in the world were Maple is currently being used, and process such mass of material in Spanish, Chinese, Hebrew, Korean or whatever language, in whatever country. 

of what you are talking about? How many universities, faculties, subjects, countries, languages? Who is that someone that "could (likely, relatively easily) do it" for all of them? And how do you think it would be managed? Who would pay for that?

1. That 2F1 is the standard notation, see eg this Wikipedia article or a reference book like Abramowitz-Stegun.

2. Indeed they satisfy the same ODE:

f:=hypergeom([-1/2*p, 1/2*p+1/2],[1/2],x^2);
PDEtools:-dpolyform(y(x)=f, no_Fn);


                     /d      \
     2           2 x |-- y(x)|
    d                \dx     /   p (p + 1) y(x)
   [--- y(x) = - ------------- + --------------] &where [y(x) <> 0]
      2                   2               2
    dx              -1 + x          -1 + x


PDEtools:-dpolyform(y(x)=LegendreP(p, x), no_Fn);

                     /d      \
     2           2 x |-- y(x)|
    d                \dx     /   p (p + 1) y(x)
   [--- y(x) = - ------------- + --------------] &where [y(x) <> 0]
      2                   2               2
    dx              -1 + x          -1 + x

Note, however, that ICs are different:

eval(f,x=0);
                                  1

eval(diff(f,x),x=0);

                                  0

eval(LegendreP(p, x),x=0);
                                  1/2
                                Pi
                   -------------------------------
                   GAMMA(1/2 - p/2) GAMMA(1 + p/2)

eval(diff(LegendreP(p, x),x),x=0);

                                       1/2
                             (p + 1) Pi
                   - -----------------------------
                     GAMMA(- p/2) GAMMA(3/2 + p/2)

1. That 2F1 is the standard notation, see eg this Wikipedia article or a reference book like Abramowitz-Stegun.

2. Indeed they satisfy the same ODE:

f:=hypergeom([-1/2*p, 1/2*p+1/2],[1/2],x^2);
PDEtools:-dpolyform(y(x)=f, no_Fn);


                     /d      \
     2           2 x |-- y(x)|
    d                \dx     /   p (p + 1) y(x)
   [--- y(x) = - ------------- + --------------] &where [y(x) <> 0]
      2                   2               2
    dx              -1 + x          -1 + x


PDEtools:-dpolyform(y(x)=LegendreP(p, x), no_Fn);

                     /d      \
     2           2 x |-- y(x)|
    d                \dx     /   p (p + 1) y(x)
   [--- y(x) = - ------------- + --------------] &where [y(x) <> 0]
      2                   2               2
    dx              -1 + x          -1 + x

Note, however, that ICs are different:

eval(f,x=0);
                                  1

eval(diff(f,x),x=0);

                                  0

eval(LegendreP(p, x),x=0);
                                  1/2
                                Pi
                   -------------------------------
                   GAMMA(1/2 - p/2) GAMMA(1 + p/2)

eval(diff(LegendreP(p, x),x),x=0);

                                       1/2
                             (p + 1) Pi
                   - -----------------------------
                     GAMMA(- p/2) GAMMA(3/2 + p/2)

It is not obvious that that such stronger deprecation will have a signifficant effect in the academics for some years. The Maple systems running in the student labs, professor and student desktops may be several versions behind. And if the teaching material (either in the web or not) was prepared years ago, it  works in those systems, and it is fit for the teaching objectives, it could be not worthwhile an additional effort investment to accommodate it to the newer package.