According to John L. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Based upon a recently submitted bug, and my own working with this
bug 1846
> 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.
+1. I too think that relative path is more portable.
> 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.
Hub
