|
|
Posted by Jim S on 12/19/06 13:40
On 19 Dec 2006 04:48:25 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:
> Jim S wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that each page should have its own /images folder rather than
>> having all the images (photos in my case) in one folder?
>
> First of all, each page can't have its own "/images" directory. If it
> begins with "/", it's root-relative (as Jukka correctly points out) and
> there's only going to be one of them.
>
> Nor ought it to have a "images" sub-directory, Not because it's wrong,
> but because it's pointless. Keep your per-page images close to the
> pages that use them, it's just easier to organise like that. "images"
> sub-directories are one more level of hassle and they add nothing.
Silly me, but it was not really what I meant.
At present all my html files (inc index.html) are in the root directory.
Also in there is a folder called 'images' where all the images live.
This must be the shortest path length, but it involves a fair bit of
searching for me since there hundreds of them.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|