|
Posted by Ben C on October 10, 2007, 5:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options > Scripsit Ben C:
>
>>>
>>> Aside from the deaths of a few extra electrons to spell out the
>>> whole root relative path, is there any down side? It seems to me
>>> that theoretically it shouldn't make any difference, and it would
>>> make it much easier to slap modualar blocks of markup into page
>>> frameworks, which may change and so forth.
>>
>> Never mind about the few extra bytes. The electrons don't die anyway,
>> they get recycled.
>
> Well, electrons _are_ mortal, really. They may innihilate when they get too
> close to antimateria, for example.
True. Now that I come to think of it I have actually configured my
browser to physically annihilate the electrons whenever I leave a page.
There's a checkbox for it in the Settings somewhere, under "Privacy" or
"Security" I think.
>> The downside of absolute paths is that when you want to move the whole
>> lot, lock stock and barrel to a different directory, you have to
>> change all the paths.
>
> Right. And root-relative paths (which start with "/") - which is what the
> question was about - have basically the same problem, though they _may_
> survive a move from a server to another (when the server file systems are
> sufficiently similar).
I thought an absolute path did start with a "/", or do you mean
something different by "root-relative"?
But this does raise another annoyance with absolute paths, which is that
they are more OS-dependent. On Windows they start with C: or something,
for example, on other systems something else. So not good if one day you
want to host everything on a different server with a different OS.
Relative paths are more portable.
| 
XML Sitemap