 | | Re: URL Style (was Re: New box cars) —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | (...) I confused myself and got my hopes up, until I realized this is an ATT.NET thing, which won't necessarily work with my page. Testing...nope. IO.COM makes its customers pay for virtual domains. (...) I like either one. I'm more concerned about (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: URL Style (was Re: New box cars) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Good point about the caching. I was thinking about that yesterday, as I was testing the domain-only version of the URL, and traversing my pages. A glance at the browser's URL display confirmed that nothing was back-translating the URL. Which (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: URL Style (was Re: New box cars) —Jeremy Sproat
|
| | | | (...) I don't know if it's allowed (shame on me :-) but it works, by using the baseURL value (implied or specified). HREF=".." will try to fetch the default doc for the parent directory. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: URL Style (was Re: New box cars) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Alternatively, I'm pretty sure that HREF="../" and HREF="./" are allowed. I've used 'em a lot over the years and never had problems. --Todd (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
