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