-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Relative vs. absolute links #160
Comments
Discussion with sprint-3-static group: We recommend that we support both. Absolute links are required in order to link to external resources. Relative links can break when end users pull the records local There are cases in machine learning and other processing where the desire it to copy the whole "directory" and in this case relative links are very useful. |
I think this has been fixed and can be closed. |
I realize this issue is closed, but it's what popped up when I went in search for a solution... @jeffnaus wrote:
What do you suggest? In brief: We are looking at implementing STAC for a large volume of near-real-time remote sensing assets. As the asset files age they will be archived from expensive (fast) storage to longer-term, cheaper storage locations. Of course, this will break any absolute links. As I see it, we have a couple options:
Is there another approach we should look at? Glenn |
The suggested solution for your use case was that you use relative links for all links except the link with the relation type |
Should links within a catalog hierarchy be absolute (all links fully qualified) or relative (to
self
, which can substituted with the URL that the document was fetched from)?Pros / cons: portability, difficulty of resolving individual links, etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: