"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is my proposal, which can embed any file. The files will be in > the bundle, and if they are extracted, they can only be extracted to > the document directory.
I am OK with that, if 'document directory' means 'a special directory that only belongs to this document'. >> As Jose already answered, all of our doc in its own virtual bundle >> anyway. We distribute in together, and the links stay internal. > > I was asking why do not you use $TEXINPUT so that you can include > these images NOT using ../../images paths? If you can not do it for > lyx, do not expect me to use it either. It is not useful for documents that we distribute, IMO. > People has suggested many solutions, but why do we want to impose such > a restriction while it is *not* needed? Why do you expect our users to > know all the tricks, whereas they can work as usual using my proposal? > As I have shown above, the only problem this may cause can be solved > trivially. OK, you send me a 10G lyx file. I click OK on everything (because you told me to do so), read the file, and when I decide that I do not need it anymore I delete it. A few days later, I notice that I cannot install new programs on my machine. After a few hours of searching, I find out that is is because of the file /home/lasgoutt/myvideos/verynice/mynicevideo.mpg that was somehow bundled with your file. Can't you see why I would be annoyed? What is the cleaning procedure that you propose? To me, locality of a document is a very important feature so that people know what they copy and where it is. A file is a file, and it is all there is to it. To use a dubious Friday evening metaphor (bear with me), if I allowed you to use my office desk for a while and, after coming home, I find that another half of you is actually sleeping on my sofa, I'd be a bit surprised. JMarc
