[Scribus] How to update a link?
Tue Jan 3 00:45:49 CET 2006
Louis Desjardins schrieb:
>>What do you other guys think?
> I am with you, Christoph. Users can expect Scribus to leave things as
> they were on the last save.
> In response to Frank Cox's suggestion, I am with Craig. I don't think
> we need a specific dialog for that.
> Nonetheless, this raises an issue about updating links for images.
> IMO, the dialog "? la Quark" is half way good and should not be taken
> as a model. What we really need is a feature that would search images
> not only at the first level of a folder (like it does in Quark) but
> within any element within a (user) designated folder (so, folders
> within folder - at any depth). That way, if images have been moved
> around for *any* reason, links could easily be recovered "at once",
> without the need to check manually for each and every image as it is
> right now (unless of course the images are not within that
> arborescence). The reference could be the time of modification and/or
> other info that devels know better than I do to determine wether an
> image was actually modified since it was imported and fitted into a
> Scribus page.
I think what you describe is not only Quark's behaviour, but most, if
not all desktop applications do more or less the same. They will either
search in the last known directory, the default directory or another
previously opened directory. The reason is the developers can't know
which is the best solution and IMHO there is none. Much depends on the
user's preferences, and it's a matter of taste.
As for searching in subdirectories, I'm not sure what will be the
appropriate criteria for deciding if an image is the "right" one. At
least on Unix-like systems "find" has a universe of opportunities to
search for files, but which to apply? I think Craig's suggestion to use
dimensions, resolution, and, perhaps, the image name will be enough.
Dimension and resolution are reasonable criteria, IMHO, because even if
another image will be imported, the settings chosen for the previous one
still make sense. What do you think?
More information about the scribus