Summary

This PR addresses#850 and most likely#877

When rendering image tags, render the image URL starting from thebase path if the image URL is root-relative, e.g./assets/my-image.png. Currently, root-relative paths are treated in the same way as normal relative paths which is not consistent with the behaviour of HTML img tags or markedjs compilation output.

Example

Given basePath = "" and the current file being/advanced/guide.md:

![](/assets/my-image.png) previously compiled to<img src="/advanced/assets/my-image.png></img>, where it is generally expected to render<img src="/assets/my-image.png></img>

This is in line with how HTMLimg tags work and how marked.js compiles its image tags.

More advanced example

Given basePath = "/docs/" and directory structure:

└── docs    ├── _sidebar.md    ├── assets        ├── my-image.png    └── subfolder        ├── _sidebar.md        ├── guide.md

In docs/subfolder/guide.md:

![](/assets/my-image.png) --> <img src="/docs/assets/my-image.png></img>

While previous behaviour would have been:

![](/assets/my-image.png) --> <img src="/docs/subfolder/assets/my-image.png></img>

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Code style update
• Refactor
• Docs
• Build-related changes
• Repo settings
• Other, please describe:

If changing the UI of default theme, please provide thebefore/after screenshot:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one)

• Yes
• [] No

If yes, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications:

This can possibly break existing repos who are relying on normal relative path behaviour even when using root-relative paths in their markdown, and hence have images located within subfolders. I have looked through some repos however and could not find any instances of this, since this is generally not how image link URLs are expected to behave.

The PR fulfills these requirements:

• When resolving a specific issue, it's referenced in the PR's title (e.g.fix #xxx[,#xxx], where "xxx" is the issue number)

You have tested in the following browsers: (Providing a detailed version will be better.)

• Chrome (84)
• Firefox (78)
• Safari (13.1.2)
• Edge
• IE

If adding anew feature, the PR's description includes:

• A convincing reason for adding this feature
• Related documents have been updated
• Related tests have been updated

To avoid wasting your time, it's best to open afeature request issue first and wait for approval before working on it.