Message-ID:  <E0zrOT4-0007lG-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Sat, 19 Dec 1998 16:30:31 +0100." 
              <v03110703b2a176947ee8@[130.237.37.145]>
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1998 15:38:56 +0000
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: portable LaTeX
Status: R

> At 08:51 -0500 1998/12/19, Y&Y Inc. wrote:
> >>But can PDF break links across pages ? --
> ..
> >...You have to split the link into two parts before
> >you turn it into PDF code.  Which is a non-trivial exercise in TeX!
>
> This is probably due to the lack of OO (Object Orientation) in TeX: A new
> DVI must be fully object oriented, so that it is possible for other
> processing tools to easily extract the information needed.

it is of course absolutely nothing whatever to do with object
orientation in tex or the lack of it.  it's to do with what bits of a
paragraph tex makes available to the user after it's been split into
lines (not, as it happens, a lot).  how those bits would be made
accessible, if that was going to happen) is a matter that could differ
according to whether the underlying engine was trying to exhibit
object orientation or not, but waving a magic o-o wand over tex won't
alter the way it works in the smallest particular.

and it is of course completely irrelevant to the discussion of latex
and/or its portability.

[sorry, everyone else.  i know i shouldn't have responded...]

robin