On 4/30/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Heh. I disagree. Both relative URLs and "site root relative" > > URLs would resolve just fine, in fact maybe better than absolute URLs. > > Say the site was moved from a private domain to a public one. > > Or the original server is now down. And add that you are > > copy/moving a site, not a single page, to make it worth while. > > If you copy the entire site, you probably don't need absolute URLs. If you > copy one file, and only one file, it will need absolute URLs to have > everything resolve properly. There's a reason why some sites use absolute > URLs or BASE tags.
That's all well and good if you can pick and choose. > See, it can just get silly, and thus my preference for not > > muddying the waters by calling absolute URLs absolute paths. > > But a URL is a path! It's not a filesystem path, but it's a path > nonetheless. When you type a URL in your browser, you're telling the > browser > what it needs to know to get to a file. That's a path. Any time you use an > IMG or A tag to point to something, it contains a URL. For sure. There are lots of paths all over the place, which is part of my reluctance to call a absolute URL a "absolute path". I'm the one who called it such to begin with, but it was already with the context of URLs, so I didn't qualify. I do think that if you called someone on the phone, and said, give me the "absolute path" to X, there could be some confusion: What kind of path? I guess, since we're web developers, we'd know that it was a URL path ;-) > Why not call it "absolute site root", and avoid the > > confusion? Or we could call the plain old relative URLs > > "page absolute" or "current directory absolute". > > I don't know. My point was simply that terminology exists to describe > these > three sorts of URLs (or paths, if you prefer). I am not trying to say that > they are the best possible ways to describe them, just that they exist, > and > are commonly used by lots of people. Such is the nature of jargon, or > terms > of art, in any field. Your point I'm addressing was your challenge for supportive argument as to my preference. I don't disagree that some people may call them that. I don't prefer path: It's like using "object" to refer to any java object. Sure it's true, but does it get the needed info across? I also don't like the idea of "/something" and "http://wee.url"; both being an "absolute URL". Jargon is probably the first step to getting into the language. Use makes a word "real". (Well, that and being in an RFC ;-) My comment was about the fact that the terminology you put forth did not seem the "best possible way" to describe what was being talked about. Here you say you agree, but you commented on the fact that I didn't have a supporting argument for my preference prior. Why? Why not say, "yes, I agree- we're adults, we can use more technical terms, here are 3 that actually express what we're talking about"? According to your definition of an absolute URL path, this isn't one: "/somedir/somefile.ext", right? Yet I would call that an absolute path for the URL. I surely wouldn't call it a "relative URL", although the path is obviously relative of the "/". Whereas I'd call this: http:\\cf-talk.com a "complete" URL before I'd call it an "absolute" one. We have the power to effect what is. When you tell someone that this is an absolute URL "http://woot.hoo";, while many may call "/blah/index.cfm" a absolute URL (it should probably be called a "root relative" URL instead?), you run into a situation where dev A thinks absolute means one thing, and dev B thinks it means another. Nothing communication can't solve... but don't tell them that AFTER they've done whatever they were going to do, now in two totally different ways. Maybe you should have qualified your first post more, so I didn't think you thought that's how it should be^H^His. [-; Where is your argument supporting your position? As the debate is to "preferred" notation, and I've tried to support my statement, but you just took away the point, if you also don't "prefer" that notation, or think it's "good" or whatever. Should be a standard, as opposed to my shouldn't be a standard? Or were we debating the need to back up statements with arguments? Did I make any sort of sense here? Sheesh, I'm a feaking mess. I must have missed the point of the initial challenge. At the least, I argued like a drunken monkey. Someday I will be a master of conversation! |>3|\| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:239203 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
