[Docutils-develop] [docutils:feature-requests] Re: #91 Include directive path argument should support a configurable root.

[Adam T. <aa-...@us...>]

I would argue the first option (include root) is the simpler and more explicit / less surprising choice.

Sphinx currently uses the current working directory as the root for all includes. If a setting was added Sphinx would support it. I can't speak for Nicola or Pelican.

A


---

** [feature-requests:#91] Include directive path argument should support a configurable root.**

**Status:** open
**Group:** Default
**Created:** Tue May 03, 2022 04:03 PM UTC by Michal Urbanski
**Last Updated:** Tue May 10, 2022 09:21 PM UTC
**Owner:** nobody


I'm building a static website using restructuredtext and I'm really annoyed by the lack of support for root-relative paths.

I have already implemented multiple directive plugins for my website build process, some of which use external files in a different format. They use the convention that if a path begins with /, they are relative to the root directory of the project.

IMO the requirement for relative paths is very limiting - I could have a directory with files intended for inclusion but:

- I would need to use `../../` which is very ugly
- relative paths are different depending on the current file path - this is very fragile and limits 

An additional argument is that C and C++ have been using #include for like 40 years and relative paths (while sometimes useful) are only for specific cases. The leading convention is to use root-relative paths.

I could implement another plugin for it but ... copy-pasting docutils own code only to change few lines is definitely smelly.


---

Sent from sourceforge.net because doc...@li... is subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/feature-requests/

To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/admin/feature-requests/options.  Or, if this is a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.