Subject: Re: Quick Poll
From: Rui Miguel Seabra (rms@multicert.com)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2001 - 08:35:21 CDT
On 14 Aug 2001 15:27:50 +0200, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> According to John L. Clark <jlc6@po.cwru.edu>:
> > In the same vein, do we want to create a new directory (I was thinking
> > of something along the lines of ${filename}_d) which will hold the image
> > files for the document? I was thinking that this would have the
> > advantage that if a user wants to move the document around (such as to
> > the web server tree), then he or she only has to move the .html file and
> > the directory with the images in parallel with one another, and nothing
> > breaks. It seems easier to use, to me.
> Why not. I'm not sure whether we should force this or make it an option, but
> definitely it would be a good idea.
Hi!
Try exporting some documents with some images to the same directory, and
you will very quickly start to believe that exporting the images to a
filename based directory will definitely be the way.
I'm not against an option to have it both ways, but I'd be pretty sure
that most everybody would rather have the images in a subdirectory,
rather than on the same directory, of where the file is saved.
Its a little like that standard document file format Dom has already
discussed, only that would be inside a zip file (called jar, zip, or
anything else), only not compressed inside one file.
Hugs, rms
-- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi + So let's do it...?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 08:33:39 CDT