Re: Full versus relative URLs
| From: | Per Jessen | Date: | Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:10:07 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Full versus relative URLs | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-288304@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Paul M Foster wrote:
> Here's a question related to my last post. When specifying a link in a
> HTML file (like to the css or an image file), there are two ways of
> doing it. One is to simply include the relative path to the file
> (relative to the doc root), like:
>
> /graphics/my_portrait.gif
>
> Or you can include the full URL, like:
>
> http://example.com/graphics/my_portrait.gif
>
> My casual observation seems to indicate that the former will load
> faster than the latter. But has anyone done any benchmarking on it?
There is no difference - the browser will resolve relative URLs to
absolute URLs before issuing the HTTP GET.
/Per
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (-0.9°C)
