On 4/28/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ah, that explains my confusion with that setting sometimes. > > > > I prefer that if it starts with a slash, it's absolute. Site > > root relative? > > > > Why not just call a URL a URL? I mean, I'm all for enriching > > the language and all, but sheesh. Site root relative is > > still absolute. I don't see anything relative about it. I'll > > end with "site root relative" is just plain silly, and > > calling a URL an absolute path is almost as silly. Maybe more so. > > ;-) > > First, stating a preference is not the same as making an argument. You > haven't given any reason why your beliefs about syntax should be accepted > by > everyone else.
I didn't know it was a debate. I was just stating a preference. And making a comment on the relativeness of the site root. I mean, sure it's relative from some point, but then again, so is "/". I didn't mean you were silly, if it came across that way. Second, you can quickly find out the difference between a site-root-relative > path and an absolute path by copying an HTML page with the former from one > server to another, and seeing how things work. An absolute file system path? Or absolute path as in the full URL, including protocol? Damn it, now I'm confused. I get the point though, I think, if you mean a site where you have to replace /something with /somethingelse all over the place. That's why I too like the "set the paths in the application.cfc" type deal, since you gotta have 'em usually anyways. Why not use variables and change them instead. :-) Third, relative, site-root-relative, and absolute paths are all acceptable > as URLs, within the context of an HTML page. So just "call[ing] a URL a > URL" > doesn't help too much, since there is obviously an important distinction > to > be made in how URLs are resolved by the browser. Distinction is important, thus my comment on "absolute paths" being mostly complete URLs. Site root relative, again, I guess if you mean that / always resolves to / or /thesite resolves to /thesite... do you see what I mean? Isn't that a sorta pointless distinction? Either it's absolute or it's relative, but calling it "site root relative"... I'm probably just overlooking something obvious conceptually. It wouldn't be the first time. Ahhh I grant you that it would be much easier if a site was set up to resolve to /somedir instead of just /, it would be trivial to have many of said sites on the same server. Is that the point of site relative paths? I can dig that. I was just being thick headed. But I still, in the context of the browser, site root relative and absolute are the same thing. ... or ..\, maybe ;-) If'n ya dig the relative part. I could probably come up with an argument that demon- strated this better than casual typing, just, not right now. (^; You are free to use whatever terminology you wish, if I see http://some.kindo.url:5070/blah?woot I'll know what to do with it. Dunno if you called me on the phone and said, "what's the absoltue path for the flower.gif file" I'd spit out "http://blah blah" tho... :DeN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:239097 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
