Re: Agenda buffer and relative links

[pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (François Pinard)]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes:

> François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> When Org mode defines a link for me, it sometimes changes it so it
>> becomes relative.  [...] This is OK in general, but not always.
>> [...]  I have feeling that there is something deeper which might
>> likely affect many Org mode users, and for which I have no general
>> solution to offer.

> Check
>    (info "(org) Handling links")
> in the manual, particularly the doc for C-u C-c C-l.

Hi, Nick, and gang.

Yes, I knew about prefixes to C-c C-l, which may be used to force links
to be absolute.  Systematic use of C-u C-u C-c C-l instead of C-c C-l
would be tedious, that's why I think there is a deeper problem about the
current defaults.

There is a virtue in relative links which I recognize.  So having an
option to force all links to be absolute might not be a solution.
Having all links relative just cannot work.  Letting the user properly
manage is quite error-prone, and fairly annoying at least.

If you put a gun on my head and say "suggest something", without much
time to think, I would go something that way:

* cutting part of a buffer containing links, links should be
  turned absolute before going in the clipboard or kill ring,

* pasting text containing links, links should be turned relative
  whenever it makes sense to do so.

What is "making sense", above?

* if a file receiving the link is not part of the agenda files, the
  current algorithm is OK,

* if a file receiving the link is part of the agenda files, and that
  agenda file is directly under org-directory, the current algorithm
  is OK,

* if a file receiving the link is part of the agenda files, and that
  agenda file is not directly under org-directory, make the link
  absolute,

This would have consequences:

* the agenda buffer should automatically be cd'ed to org-directory,

* adding (removing) a file to (from) the list of agenda-files becomes a
  complex operation, requiring all links to be adjusted.

All of the above is surely very debatable, and other people may likely
devise other approaches.  That's why I say it may require deeper
thought.  I would only like to stress that there is a problem.

François


P.S. I have lot of links, and I often move contents around in files.
Adjusting links while doing so has been a bit painful all along.  So
far, I used mixes of Python scripts, editionswith Vim, or sometimes
editions with Emacs in fundamental mode.  And I wrote a cross-checking
and diagnosis tool which I run at least daily, at backup time.