Relative Link Paths

Peter,

Yes, it works on a single machine, but if you try to move the whole project to another machine (or disk on the same machine), the "relative" links are all broken. Relative links make for easy moving of stuff. Generally, InDesign documents are held in static locations so relative links aren't that important, but there are times when I've wished for them.

Dave

>What relative addressing would allow would be the kind of sharing of common elements that can be done on web sites by using links that go up a level, across to another folder and then down.

I'm doing that now. As long as you don't rename a folder in the middle of the path (i.e. everything is below the folder you rename) it works fine. If the target is in a folder on a different branch of the same tree and you rename something partway out that branch, you break the link.

The way it works right now is a mix between absolute and relative. It stores absolute addresses. But if it can't find the link at the absolute address (e.g., because of some renaming of the sort just discussed), then it will look for them inside the document's folder, although just how deeply it will look, I'm not sure.

This is how packaging works. You package a file and all the links are copied to a Links folder inside the package folder. When that package is moved to another computer, the links can't be found at the addresses held in the InDesign document and so it checks inside the document folder and there they are.

What relative addressing would allow would be the kind of sharing of common elements that can be done on web sites by using links that go up a level, across to another folder and then down.

Dave

Well, it appears to me that is exactly the way it works now on my system. I've just renamed root folders for several clients with various link patterns. One has links in the same folder as the doc, one in a sub-folder directly below the doc, and one has some in many places, including a completely different branch of the directory tree under the same client root, i.e the document is in clients\clentname\newsletters\month and some links are located there, but others are located in clients\clentname\logos\better.

Changing the root name of the clientname folder in each case caused no problem whatever with missing links. If you rename the "better" folder to "use these" I'm sure you will have trouble, but that's because you've destroyed the relative tree structure within your root.

Yes, the example is where a file is located within the current folder.

Say your document is located here:

C:\Clients

You have placed files, located here:

C:\Clients\Images

Later, you rename the root folder thusly:

C:\Customers

With an absolute path, all files that were within the "Clients" folder will now have broken links. With a relative path, the links remain intact. If you had other linked files not within the "Clients" folder, you could set them to absolute paths, so that those links also remained intact.

so how does a relative path help you here? If you move or rename the folder, you destroy that path information the same as you would for absolute paths. Your example implies the linked file is located in the same folder as the document, I think.

I have a huge image/vector library which I'm constantly adding to, rearranging etc. I like everything to be very structured, so from time to time it's necessary to rename a folder in order to encompass a description of its contents more accurately.

Additionally, when upgrading program versions, some folder structures have become obsolete. For example, InDesign CS3 allows me to place INDD files within others, thus eliminating the need for a special PDF folder I used to keep PDF versions in. However, this folder also contained other PDFs, but overall it no longer logically fitted within its parent folder, so I had to distribute the files differently.

I'm sure that makes no sense to you, but basically I'm forever streamlining my files and folders. :)

> Every time I change a drive letter or folder name where a linked file is stored...

You've got me curious...why are you doing that?

Bob