2012/8/20 Jim Giner <jim.giner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > On 8/20/2012 12:19 AM, Jim Lucas wrote: > >> On 8/17/2012 6:35 PM, Jim Giner wrote: >> >>> On 8/17/2012 7:16 PM, Jim Lucas wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> You could simply remove all full domain+path URL links and replace >>>> them with absolute path urls only. >>>> >>>> turn http://www.somedomain.com/**path/to/my/webpage.html<http://www.somedomain.com/path/to/my/webpage.html> >>>> >>>> into /path/to/my/webpage.html >>>> >>>> This would work with either domain. >>>> >>>> Those would be "relative paths", ..o? >>> >>> >> No. >> >> Quick Google search turns up this: >> >> http://www.uvsc.edu/disted/**decourses/dgm/2120/IN/steinja/** >> lessons/06/06_04.html<http://www.uvsc.edu/disted/decourses/dgm/2120/IN/steinja/lessons/06/06_04.html> >> >> I have three description or types of paths that I use normally. >> >> I feel the first two generally get grouped together by most persons. >> >> Full or complete path: >> <a href="http://www.cmsws.com/**index.php<http://www.cmsws.com/index.php> >> ">Home</a> >> >> Absolute Path: >> <a href="/index.php">Home</a> >> >> Relative: >> <a href="index.php">Home</a> >> >> -- >> Jim Lucas >> http://cmsws.com >> >> >> Anything that does not "absolutely" define something, is "relative" to > the current context. In this case since your href does not mention the > sitename, in my book that equates to something relative. absolute path != absolute (or better "full-qualified") URL/URI. Therefore "/foo/bar" is an absolute path, but a relative URI. > Count me as one person who would never lump the first two ex. into one. > The simple device of using the leading slash to start the href indicates > its "relativity" to the the home folder of the site. The document-root. The home of the user the webserver/interpreter is running on may be somewhere else. > The lack of a leading slash indicates its "relativity" to the current > folder. Relative to the current path. Especially with rewrites "folder" and "path" can be completely different.
