Ignoring pdftex primitives

[Timothy Murphy]

On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 08:27:30AM -0400, George White wrote:

> It would also be useful to add pdftex support to some widely used
> documents such as the manual for the graphics package, and in fact useful
> if all the latex2e documentation could be made more pdftex friendly to
> take advantage of things like the outline view in acrobat reader.  

I agree completely.
Also amsldoc.
An incidental advantage of this 
(if the original .tex file were also available)
is that it would provide valuable "samplers" of pdftex input files.

> I find
> that online documentation in pdf format is more likely to be read than if
> it is in .dvi or even .ps format, if only because it takes a bit more
> effort on the part of users to support .dvi and .ps files in their WWW
> browsers than to support pdf files. 

Why is it easier for PDF than DVI?

Incidentally, on a related point but one irrelevant to PdfTeX,
it's a pity xdvi does not look along the path DVIINPUTS
defined in .../web2c/texmf.cnf, as far as I can see.
If it did, one could just tell people to "xdvi amsldoc", for example.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: tim at maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland