Kaushal Modi writes:
> I meant "Would it be OK to have ox-hugo.el define a link abbreviation like
> `hugo-static:' for the user?" That way, each user of ox-hugo.el does not
> have to do that in their configs.
Anything goes, but I'm quite certain there's a better way.
> For static site generator
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:55 AM Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
> Kaushal Modi writes:
>
> > Hmm. Thanks for that hint. Would it be OK to define backend-specific link
> > abbreviations?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Back-end are able to manipulate links the way they want without Org core
> interfering. IOW,
Kaushal Modi writes:
> Hmm. Thanks for that hint. Would it be OK to define backend-specific link
> abbreviations?
I don't think so.
Back-end are able to manipulate links the way they want without Org core
interfering. IOW, this black magick should operate whitin "ox-hugo.el"
itself, IMO.
BTW,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:39 AM Nicolas Goaziou
wrote:
>
> There is only one possible interpretation of this: look for the file at
> "/images/image.png", which probably doesn't exist.
>
I agree. It's definitely less confusing to an unknowing user with that
strict definition.
ISTM you are lookin
Hello,
Brett Viren writes:
> Nikola source wants this layout:
>
> /path/to/my/nikola/posts/my-blog-post.org
> /path/to/my/nikola/images/unicorn.jpg
>
> The Org source generates to HTML which will be found at this URL path:
>
> /mysiteroot/posts/my-blog-post/index.html
>
> So, right now, ei
Hello,
Kaushal Modi writes:
> #+HTML_LINK_ROOT: /tmp/site/static/
>
> An =image.png= exists as =/tmp/site/static/images/image.png=.
>
> * This is how the image links should have worked with the link root already
> specified
> [[/images/image.png]]
There is only one possible interpretation of th
Having seen the other posts on this, I think I'll need to spend more
time thinking about this and the various use cases. There is something
I'm having trouble putting my finger on which doesn't feel quite right,
but I feel I need to look more deeply into the whole idea of how to
export links gener
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:54 PM Kaushal Modi wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I tried out the patch, and my comments are in the MWE below.
>
> I have this MWE that explains the "would like to have" vs "what this patch
> gives us":
>
> =
> #+TITLE: ox-html root dir
> #+OPTIONS: toc:nil
> #+STA
Hi Nicolas,
I tried out the patch, and my comments are in the MWE below.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:59 AM Brett Viren wrote:
> Is this saying "subtract the value of 'html_link_root' from the Org link
> to make its URL"?
>
> If so, I think this would not be general enough to help some cases. For
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> So, basically, upon exporting the following document to HTML:
>
> #+html_link_root: /tmp/
> [[/tmp/unicorn.jpg]]
>
> the link becomes
>
>
Is this saying "subtract the value of 'html_link_root' from the Org link
to make its URL"?
If so, I think this
Hello,
Kaushal Modi writes:
> Can you please attach the patch?
Oops. Here it is.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
>From 6eed5dcd4e585dd32e52571189cf395b1a532310 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nicolas Goaziou
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 12:40:49 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ox-html: Implement root directory
Hello,
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017, 6:45 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
> The following patch implements `org-html-root', which allows to export
> file links as root-relative URL.
Can you please attach the patch?
I'm
not sure the docstring is clear
> enough, tho.
>
Also, HTML publishing process alwa
Hello,
Tim Cross writes:
> 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).
The following pa
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 b
Hello,
Carsten Dominik 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
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.
Carsten
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:08 PM
Hello,
Kaushal Modi writes:
> I don't see why "file://" would be useful in html exports
OK. Il remove the file:// scheme specifications then.
> (or pdf, md, etc).
Well, those are not related to network based protocols. Does it really
make a difference in those cases?
Regards,
--
Nicolas Go
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017, 6:35 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Let me ask this the other way: is there any situation where "file://"
> prefix is desirable?
>
I don't see why "file://" would be useful in html exports (or pdf, md,
etc). It is probably needed only in org to org exports.
> --
Kaushal Modi
Hello,
Matt Price writes:
> in org-html-link local links of the form
>
> "/some/path/to/file"
>
> are rewritten as
>
> "file:///some/path/to/file".
>
> This makes it difficult to write root-relative URL's in the way that one
> might expect to be able to (so that export produces links like
>
>
>
in org-html-link local links of the form
"/some/path/to/file"
are rewritten as
"file:///some/path/to/file".
This makes it difficult to write root-relative URL's in the way that one
might expect to be able to (so that export produces links like
Is this really the most desirable behaviour? In
20 matches
Mail list logo
