Hello, Carsten Dominik <domi...@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, -- Nicolas Goaziou
