Re: why prepend "file://" to abs paths in html output?

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

Ni Nicolas,

I think I agree.

If I export org files as HTML for use on my local system, I probably
want 'real' links and file:/// is probably the right thing as I don't
want to have to also install the files in a local web server. However,
when I want to export files to HTML and have them served by a web
server, file:/// is not the right thing.

Perhaps we need a way to easily set a context for web exports. If the
context is set, then use it, otherwise, use file:/// (actually, I
thought this was already there, but it has been a while since I did html
exports where links were necessary).

Tim

Nicolas Goaziou writes:

> Hello,
>
> Carsten Dominik <dominik@uva.nl> writes:
>
>> I think it can be useful to write file: in the org-mode file, to make a
>> clear distinction from internal links.  But once it is clear that something
>> is a link to a file, I guess you are right  that it might not be needed in
>> HTML.  We will see what breaks.....
>
> Thinking about it, we should probably not remove the "file://" prefix.
>
> I cannot think of any situation where [[/absolute/path/to/file]] would
> match something like "<img src="/absolute/path/to/file"/>", because "/"
> never matches web root directory.
>
> IOW, to re-use the OP's example, [[/static/images/unicorn.jpg]] is never
> a valid Org link, in the sense that it points to a non-existing file.
> Since the OP is writing a link only valid during HTML export, he might
> as well write raw HTML.
>
> Note that that "file:///static/images/unicorn.jpg" is not useful either,
> but at least it is logical.
>
> The only situation where we might do something is during publishing,
> when we know what web root directory – i.e., base directory – is. In
> that case, we could replace absolute file names starting with web root
> dir as root-relative URL.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,


-- 
Tim Cross