Changing pagespecs to be relative by default is quite feasible now, but it will cause
backwards compatibility problems. Should this be marked as a future plan, perhaps at a
-major version number like 2.0? --Ethan
\ No newline at end of file
+major version number like 2.0? --Ethan
+
+Yes, I'm looking at making this kind of change at 2.0, added to the list.
+(Update: Didn't make it in 2.0 or 3.0...)
+However, I have doubts that it makes good sense to go relative by default.
+While it's not consitent with links, it seems to work better overall to
+have pagespecs be absolute by default, IMHO. --[[Joey]]
+
+I think after you work with ikiwiki for a while, it "makes more sense" for
+them to be absolute, but I definitely remember tripping over absolute
+pagespecs a few times when I was just starting out. Thus I think we've
+learned to accept it as natural, where a new user wouldn't.
+
+* bugs, todo, news, blog, users, and sandbox
+ are all at "toplevel", so they are equivalent whether
+ pagespecs are absolute or relative.
+* soc doesn't refer to any pages explicitly so it doesn't matter
+* various plugins have pagespecs at plugins/foo.mdwn: map, linkmap, orphans,
+ pagecount, pagestats
+ * I'd say most of these make more sense as having abs. pagespecs
+ * I note that your sitemap is at toplevel, but there's no reason
+ not to allow putting it in a special meta/ directory.
+* examples/blog and examples/software site need to have relative pagespecs,
+ but they're pretty special cases -- for a real site those things
+ will probably be toplevel
+* plugins/contrib makes more sense to inline relative (though it doesn't
+ right now)
+
+Maybe inline should use relative pagespecs by default, and other plugins
+don't? --Ethan