Forwarded at John's suggestion Randy Kramer
Hey Guys, Based upon a recently submitted bug, and my own working with this section of the code as I've been trying to fix the (x)html image exporting problem, I wanted to ask everybody on this list a question. Actually, this would probably be more appropriate on the users list, so if anyone wants to cross post over there, as well, that would be appreciated. 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. Thoughts? Take care, John
