Asif Lodhi wrote: >Hi, > >I go with Christoph's idea of thinking of _all_ the Scribus-related >documents as a project and putting them under a project directory.... > > > I think you may be right about this, but it seems this is more of a "best practices" kind of advice, that might do well to be on the Wiki so others can avoid subsequent frustration.
> >Perhaps, out of workflow optimization issues, >images could be put on a separate hard-disk in a separate content >managemnt server (the image directory being linked/mounted on the local >disk) so that the graphic artists as well as the DTP experts could work >in parallel. > For some, this may be the preferred way of working -- having a static, well-organized image directory with subdirectories, and in that case, they might not want the bother of making copies elsewhere. > When everything has been finalized (images are approved, >text has been proofread, layout is approved, etc.) and those files are >needed together in one directory - perhaps Scribus could use some kind >of an export/collect functionality. > > One thing which has occurred to me is that, even though some of the Scribus team seem to wince at the thought, the fact that .sla files are text-based means that, even if one commits a "faux pas" such as David did, it is possible to load the .sla file into a text editor and do a search-and-replace operation to fix all the image references in the .sla file. Greg
