-systems at the current point of time would be @w{Emacs 22.1}. At the
-time of this writing, however, it has not been released and is still
-under development. The quality of the development version is quite
-solid, so we recommend giving it a try. With a developer version, of
-course, you have to be prepared to update in case you managed to get
-your snapshot at a bad time. The second best choice would be the latest
-released @w{Emacs 21.4}. However, Unicode support is less good, there
-is no version for the popular GTK toolkit, and the native versions for
-Windows and MacOS don't offer toolbar and @previewlatex{} support.
-
-Our success with XEmacs has been less than convincing. Under the
-Windows operating system, nominally the only option for a released,
-stable Emacs variant supporting toolbars and @previewlatex{} would be
-@w{XEmacs 21.4}. However, code for core functionality like formatting
-and syntax highlighting tends to be different and often older than even
-@w{Emacs 21.4}, and Unicode support as delivered is problematic at best,
-missing on Windows. Both @AUCTeX{} and XEmacs developers don't hear
-much from active users of the combination. Partly for that reason,
-problems tend to go unnoticed for long amounts of time and are often
-found, if at all, after releases. No experiences or recommendations can
-be given for beta or developer versions of XEmacs.
+systems at the current point of time would be @w{Emacs 22} or higher.
+
+Our success with XEmacs has been less than convincing. Code for core
+functionality like formatting and syntax highlighting tends to be
+different and often older than even @w{Emacs 21.4}, and Unicode support
+as delivered is problematic at best, missing on Windows. Both @AUCTeX{}
+and XEmacs developers don't hear much from active users of the
+combination. Partly for that reason, problems tend to go unnoticed for
+long amounts of time and are often found, if at all, after releases. No
+experiences or recommendations can be given for beta or developer
+versions of XEmacs.