Mail-Followup-To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
References: <200903021910.n22JAUL17749@f7.net>
            <200903022158.n22LwNdY031012@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>
            <18861.40383.5784.382533@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID:  <20090303214922.GA4383@irwin.vpn.uni-freiburg.de>
Date:         Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:49:23 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Heiko Oberdiek <oberdiek@UNI-FREIBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: \includegraphics, eps, pdf, and \write18
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <18861.40383.5784.382533@morse.mittelbach-online.de>
Precedence: list
Status: R

On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:14:39PM +0100, Frank Mittelbach wrote:

> I agree with David, that such an integration would be best placed in
> pdftex.def, wouldn't it? Or am we missing something?

* The method of epstopdf is also useful for other drivers.
  I don't know a driver that supports all image formats.
* grffile
* bmpsize
* ...

> the .def file concept has been invented precisely for hiding the interface
> pecularies from the high-level interface that is used in the LaTeX source and
> that is precisely what we need here, or?

I would rather say a new design for the missing stuff is needed, e.g.:
* interface for .def files
* command line options, program configuration
* ...

However, I doubt there will be enough energy to heat graphicx.
Thus designing and writing a successor for graphicx seems the
easier road. A candidate for this would be me because of my
packages (see above). I am tempted, but I fear and know that
I don't have the time for it (next weeks and months).

Yours sincerely
  Heiko <oberdiek@uni-freiburg.de>