Subject:
|
Re: HTML URL question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:04:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
310 times
|
| |
|
|
In article <GAH8pM.6rv@lugnet.com>, Jim Hughes <hughesj@one.net> wrote:
> Heres a question;
>
> I am working of some web site scripting and wonder if any of you know
> which is more effecient to call;
>
> a) an absolute reference, e.g <a href="http://elementregistry/history.html">
>
> or
>
> b) a relative reference e.g. <a href="../../history.html">
>
> Or doesnt it make any real difference?
As efficiency goes, no, it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference--
that all happens on the browser end and in today's world of piles o'
graphics and javascript and ActiveX controls and who knows what else, a
couple of strncmp()s and a strncpy() doesn't do a whole lot of damage.
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: HTML URL question
|
| (...) Great, that was the answer I was hoping for. It will be alot easier for me to script from an absolute reference than it will for me to constantly figure out the relative position of a given page. --Jim (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | HTML URL question
|
| Heres a question; I am working of some web site scripting and wonder if any of you know which is more effecient to call; a) an absolute reference, e.g <a href="(URL) or b) a relative reference e.g. <a href="../../history.html"> Or doesnt it make any (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
