|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/09/07 01:27
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:10:02 GMT
Peter Smith scribed:
> I've noticed that some websites use absolute paths when linking to local
> files, e.g. '/', '/style.css, '/images/logos/header.gif' etc., which has
> the advantage that pages in subdirectories can use the same paths as
> pages in the root, but also has the disadvantage that the site has to be
> developed in the root folder (htdocs) rather than a subdirectory
> (htdocs/myproject).
>
> And some sites use relative paths ('images/logos/header.gif' or
> '../images/logos/header.gif' if the page is in a subdirectory of the
> root) which has the advantage that the site can be put in any directory
> and the paths will work, but the disadvantage that calling functions
> that create HTML or including chunks of HTML can be a problem because
> the paths will need to change depending on the directory of the page
> using the HTML.
>
> Other sites seem to use a combination -- linking relatively to some
> files but absolutely to others.
>
> I'm never really sure which route to take. Are there reasons for
> choosing absolute or relative paths that I'm not aware of?
If you're worried about it, why not use absolute urls?
(http://www.example.com/thisdir/thatdir/what.gif)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|