Re: Full versus relative URLs

Tim-Hinnerk Heuer http://www.ihostnz.com Mike Ditka - "If God had wanted man to play soccer, he wouldn't have given us arms." 2009/2/17 Paul M Foster <paulf@quillandmouse.com> > 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. > In that case you could change your hosts file (unix: /etc/hosts windows: %windir%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) and add a line with the live server's ip like so: 123.456.789.12 www.example.com and all your URLs would be right. When you need to check the live domain, you can simply comment out that line with #. ;) Hope this helps a few people. Saved me a lot of grief. > > Paul > > -- > Paul M. Foster > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >