MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7080-Fri12Sep1997092816+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk>
            <199709121312.JAA15051@fenris.math.albany.edu>
Message-ID:  <8351-Fri12Sep1997143129+0100-s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  <199709121312.JAA15051@fenris.math.albany.edu>
Date:         Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:31:29 +0100
From: Sebastian Rahtz <s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: HyperLaTeX
Status: R

 > With incompatible \specials, some expertise is needed to even be able to
 > exchange TeX source.
"some", yes, one cannot deny.

 > This is exactly the kind of problem the latex project has solved for
 > users of straight latex (without \specials). In the world of \specials,
 > we have the same kind of anarchy that existed for latex 2.09 macro
 > packages.

i certainly do deny this. the LaTeX team have consistently and
thoroughly promoted the use of packages which conceal \special s from
view, in the area of color and graphics inclusion. I would argue that
hyperrref follows the same lead. The typical user has a non-committal
LaTeX file saying:

 \usepackage{foo}

and a global .cfg file saying that their preferred driver is XXX (or
you can build a special format file which says this). then the LaTeX
file can safely be shipped to me, who has driver YYY, and all is well.

granted, this is far from ideal, but its not the \special anarchy
which we had a few years ago.

Sebastian