Subject:
|
Re: HTML URL question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:37:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jamie Obrien writes:
> Hi, i'm not sure about efficiency in computing, but i use the relative one
> most of the time, for the mere fact that if i move the files to a different
> machine or server, i don't have to change all the absolute references to
> relfect the new machine/server.
>
> Jamie
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jim Hughes writes:
> > 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?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --Jim
I like it when website designers use relative URLs. On WebTV, when a link is
highlighted, you press crtl + cmd to see the target address; however, you're
limited to the number of characters displayed in the little window, so the
final page/site location cannot be seen with a lengthy A-HREF. Also true
with other browsers...
--Electro--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
