I won't forward any more of these unless I see some different responses -- there seems to be a consensus. Randy Kramer
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold) ----------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body.
