On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 07:39:29PM +0200, Thodoris 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?
Paul
I am not aware if absolute URLs are faster or not (in case they are
there will be such a small difference you cannot probably notice) but
IMHO it is a bad practice to use full URLs.
Basically because renaming directories or scripts will cause great pain
in the ass.
Of course resources that are coming outside your own site are needed to
use absolute URLs and nobody is assuming that are useless.
Agreed. But here's the real reason, in my case. We develop the pages on
an internal server, which has the URL http://pokey/mysite.com. When we
move the pages to the live server at mysite.com, all the URLs would have
to be rewritten. Ugh.
Paul
I sometimes use something like this in my scripts for every script to determine itself:
// Find what is the name of this script
$self = basename($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']);
You can probably take advantage of the $_SERVER information so that you don't need to rewrite every url you use.
Hope that helps.
--
Thodoris
