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) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
