From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2002-03-03T12:11:38+09:00
Subject: RE: RDoc question

I think this is a perfect idea Dave.

-rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
> Thomas
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:02 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: RDoc question
> 
> 
> Massimiliano Mirra <list@chromatic-harp.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 08:07:52AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > > happy to include it - it would be nice to be able to have local
> > > images.
> > 
> > Maybe just a directive like $IMAGEDIR=~/src/projectname/images at the
> > top, and then filenames throughout the source that end with a certain
> > extension (.png, .jpg etc.) are converted into a link by merging them
> > with $IMAGEDIR?
> 
> OK - how about this for an idea. Have a new kind of hyperlink
> 
>    link:<stuff>
> 
> It operates just like (say) http:<stuff>, except:
> 
> 1. the link: part is stripped off, and nothing is put in its
>    place.
> 
> 2. The URL is automatically adjusted to be relative to the --op
>    directory if it doesn't start '#'
> 
> 
> So, you could say
> 
>   link:images/cow.gif
> 
> and it would be replaced by <img src="../../../cow.gif"> (or however
> many ../'s were needed). When you build your documentation, you'd
> arrange to do
> 
>    mkdir doc/images
>    cp cow.gif doc/images/cow.gif
> 
> If instead you had
> 
>   link:html/license.html
> 
> You could say
> 
>   See the file link:html/license.html for details
> 
> and it would generate the necessary <a href="../../html/license.html">...
> 
> The think I like about this is that is works equally well both locally
> and via http.
> 
> 
> Does that work for folks?
> 
> 
> Dave
>