>> Can someone elaborate on this? What's broken about it? Will pages
>> foo/index/index.html include foo/index in their parentlinks? --Ethan
+ >>> Presently the patch does not move `foo/index.type` as `foo/index/index.html`, but renders
+ >>> it as `foo/index.html`, not because I particularly want that (except for the top-level one, of
+ >>> course), but because it could be done :). This, however, conflicts with a `foo.mdwn`
+ >>> rendered as `foo/index.html`. The easiest and cleanest way to do this, is to simply
+ >>> not handle `index` in such a special manner -- except for the top-level one. --[[tuomov]]
+
* This does make the resulting wikis much less browsable directly on the
filesystem, since `dir` to `dir/index.html` conversion is only handled by web
servers and so you end up browsing to a directory index all the time.
>> index.html yet another option. I'm not _that_ fond of optioons
>> however. --[[Joey]]
+ >>> It is worth noting, that with this patch, you _can_ render the local
+ >>> copy in the present manner, while rendering the Web copy under
+ >>> directories. So no extra options are really needed for local browsing,
+ >>> unless you also want to serve the same copy over the Web, which I
+ >>> doubt. --[[tuomov]]
+
* Some of the generated links are missing the trailing / , which is
innefficient since it leads to a http redirect when clicking on that
link. Seems to be limited to ".." links, and possibly only to