[RFC] Image filename conventions

[Tommy Reynolds]

Uttered James Laska <jlaska at redhat.com>, spake thus:

> Are you already set on this format?  Something about leaving the image
> filenames open to the authors appeals to me.  What are your thoughts on
> a directory structure instead of filename rules?  Perhaps something
> like:
>   figs/$lang/
>   figs/common/  or just figs/
> If we force all images to be in the figs/ subdirectory, this will make
> it difficult for large documents to remain sane.
> Thoughts/concerns?

Yeah, I'm going to be pretty stubborn on the filename convention.
This format mimics the decision we have for the various document
translations themselves.  We have a base filename ${DOCBASE}, a
${LANG} specifier, and an .xml extention.  However, with the images
we also allow generic images to omit the ${LANG} component.

I don't really care how the "figs/" files are organized.  Make a flat
directory, make tons of subdirs, it all works for me.  The
"docs-common/bin/copy-figs" script traverses the "figs/" tree,
copying individual files into corresponding subdirs in the
destination.

I have added the "figs/Manifest-${LANG}" file, mentioned in my
previous email, so you can name your files using whatever convention
you choose; the cost is having to explicity identify the files.

Sound OK, now?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20051212/839a69d9/attachment.sig>