Subject: Re: [Fwd: Quick Poll]
From: Phil Stracchino (alaric@babcom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2001 - 15:28:05 CDT
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:07:30AM -0400, Randy Kramer wrote:
> For our (x)html exporter, we currently export individual images into the
> same directory as the exported (x)html file, and then provide a fully
> qualified path to them within the (x)html file. I want to ask whether
> we want to keep it this way or change it such that the exported images
> are referred to by a relative path. I think this way would be more
> portable and flexible.
>
> 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.
I would go with relative paths and an associated subdirectory.
Portability is a Good Thing.
--
Linux Now! ..........Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.
phil stracchino -- the renaissance man -- mystic zen biker geek
alaric@babcom.com halmayne@sourceforge.net
2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)
-----------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
abiword-user-request@abisource.com with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 15:28:12 CDT