Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been travelling. See below.
At 18:27 on 17 May 2016, David Kastrup wrote:
>Mark Knoop writes:
>> Could you indicate a working setup where relative point-and-click
>> links are *not* broken?
>
>They work like other file-relative links in URIs.
To be completely c
Mark Knoop writes:
> At 10:32 on 17 May 2016, Urs Liska wrote:
>>Am 17.05.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Mark Knoop:
>>> At 05:47 on 17 May 2016, Urs Liska wrote:
Mark, can you give us a reason why you consider relative
point-and-click links "broken"?
>>> I am unaware of any way for the pdf
At 10:32 on 17 May 2016, Urs Liska wrote:
>Am 17.05.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Mark Knoop:
>> At 05:47 on 17 May 2016, Urs Liska wrote:
>>> Mark, can you give us a reason why you consider relative
>>> point-and-click links "broken"?
>> I am unaware of any way for the pdf viewer, or the whatever hand
Am 17.05.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Mark Knoop:
> At 05:47 on 17 May 2016, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Mark, can you give us a reason why you consider relative
>> point-and-click links "broken"?
> I am unaware of any way for the pdf viewer, or the whatever handles the
> textedit url, to know what the link is
At 05:47 on 17 May 2016, Urs Liska wrote:
>Mark, can you give us a reason why you consider relative
>point-and-click links "broken"?
I am unaware of any way for the pdf viewer, or the whatever handles the
textedit url, to know what the link is relative to. Correct me if I am
wrong on this.
--
Ma
Urs Liska writes:
> As reported by Mark Knoop in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2016-05/msg5.html
> this commit
>
> commit f30a8189adbbeefa2103e2c2e194040f66bc2291
> Author: Urs Liska
> Date: Tue Jan 19 10:52:33 2016 +0100
>
> #4747: Remove (all) uses of is-absolute?
As reported by Mark Knoop in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2016-05/msg5.html
this commit
commit f30a8189adbbeefa2103e2c2e194040f66bc2291
Author: Urs Liska
Date: Tue Jan 19 10:52:33 2016 +0100
#4747: Remove (all) uses of is-absolute?
The check for absolute paths
