Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Micky Hulse mickyhulse.li...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder how many folks don't specify the http: part? It sounds like there are no drawbacks. Not quite: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/02/10/5a-missing-schema-double-download/ -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Russ Weakley
Not quite: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/02/10/5a-missing-schema-double-download/ Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy! :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Seona Bellamy
On 10 November 2010 19:22, Russ Weakley r...@maxdesign.com.au wrote: Not quite: http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/02/10/5a-missing-schema-double-download/ Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy! :) That last post from a Microsoft guy was interesting though. He says

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Micky Hulse
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Russ Weakley r...@maxdesign.com.au wrote: Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy!  :) Haha! Too true! Back to the drawing board I guess. :D Dang, I am still undecided about weather or not I should adopt this technique! On one hand, the no-http site

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
On 10/11/2010 18:38, Micky Hulse wrote: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Russ Weakleyr...@maxdesign.com.au wrote: Yikes! It all seemed so easy... suspiciously easy! :) Haha! Too true! Back to the drawing board I guess. :D It really just depends on what you're trying to do though. The

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Micky Hulse
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk wrote: It really just depends on what you're trying to do though. The bug apparently only affects stylesheets, and the whole reason I'm assuming you'd ...snip... another domain using the same protocol as the one you're

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-10 Thread Andrew Harris
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk wrote: It really just depends on what you're trying to do though. Precisely, and the IE hit certainly pales into insignificance compared to the benefits for us. We run a lot of sites, an awful lot of pages, and an awful lot

[WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-09 Thread Andrew Harris
I remember a discussion about this a long time ago, can't remember if it was on this list, but someone might remember... * We're a big university: lots of pages! * We want to use one master style sheet as much as possible, to maximise caching, minimise management etc. * The images referenced in

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-09 Thread Mathew Robertson
works fine. http://www.no-http.org/ http://www.webreference.com/html/tutorial2/3.html http://www.no-http.org/cheers, Mathew Robertson On 10 November 2010 12:38, Andrew Harris and...@woowoowoo.com wrote: I remember a discussion about this a long time ago, can't remember if it was on this

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-09 Thread Andrew Harris
oh, thank you! On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mathew Robertson mathew.blair.robert...@gmail.com wrote: works fine. http://www.no-http.org/ http://www.webreference.com/html/tutorial2/3.html cheers, Mathew Robertson -- Andrew Harris and...@woowoowoo.com http://www.woowoowoo.com ~~~ *

Re: [WSG] lazyweb://schema.agnostic.URLs

2010-11-09 Thread Micky Hulse
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Harris and...@woowoowoo.com wrote: works fine. http://www.no-http.org/ http://www.webreference.com/html/tutorial2/3.html Interesting! Thanks for sharing. Learn something new every day. I wonder how many folks don't specify the http: part? It sounds like