Re: Draft approach to split ARIA repository

On 06/05/2016 11:11 AM, Michiel Bijl wrote:
>> For references to things in the common repository or other 
>> repositories, such as scripts and images or links to sections of 
>> other specs, I'm inclined to suggest we use relative links. They just 
>> have to point one directory higher than they used to. For me, this 
>> makes things easier when working offline, but requires having local 
>> clones of any other repository you need to reference, and assumes the 
>> clones are at sibling directory levels to each other. Some may say 
>> absolute links are preferred though, so we may need to debate pros / 
>> cons of both approaches.
>
> I’d prefer absolute paths because I despise nested repositories.
Maybe we should discuss at the next editors' meeting if you're around 
for that one. I'm curious if you despise nested repositories for an 
engineering reason, or just a preference.

I don't think the proposal to use relative links depends on a nested 
repositories implementation. If the repositories are all stored as 
sibling folders (e.g., <your github clone folder>/w3c/<various ARIA 
repositories>) the relative links should just work, and would work in 
GitHub online too.

I prefer relative links because I sometimes work on documents offline, 
and load them in a browser to check my work. If the links are absolute, 
key things go missing and it can be hard to check the doc. Of course 
it's a minority of the time I'm in this situation, but often enough I 
tend to plan for it. If the group consensus is to go for absolute links, 
though, I can live with it (with a little grumbling at times I'm working 
offline...).

Michael
>
> —Michiel
>