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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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 Until
recently there was a bug... Does that mean it's fixed? Or that it's going
to be fixed in IE9 and everything prior can go hang? Or that they've just
re-classified it so that it's not a bug anymore?

~Seona


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

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 was very convicing as to why
one should stop using HTTP... On the other hand, if IE can't get it
right...

Anyway, thanks all for the interesting thread!


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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 bug 
apparently only affects stylesheets, and the whole reason I'm assuming 
you'd want to use the protocol-less syntax is to have shared assets 
between http and https versions that are cached even when moving from 
insecure to secure. If you can live with the tiny overhead of just 
having the stylesheet recalled twice, it's not a huge deal imho (not 
optimal, but not a deal-breaker). If you're holding all the files you 
reference (like css) one the same server anyway, a simple 
/path/to/stylesheet.css path relative to the root of the current 
server will work fine and avoid the double download...so really, the 
only issue (when you'd want to use //foo.com/stylesheet.css) is when 
you want to reference a stylesheet from another domain using the same 
protocol as the one you're currently using...an edge-case, I'd argue?


P


Dang, I am still undecided about weather or not I should adopt this
technique! On one hand, the no-http site was very convicing as to why
one should stop using HTTP... On the other hand, if IE can't get it
right...

Anyway, thanks all for the interesting thread!


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***




--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re∑dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
__
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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 currently
 using...an edge-case, I'd argue?

Excellent points Patrick! I would have to agree. :)

I personally have not dealt with HTTPS in a while, but I will
definitely consider using this technique in future.

Cheers!
M


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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 of
visitors. Any resources - even the Uni logo in the corner - that can
be shared effectively are going to make a substantial difference. Our
current style sheets have absolute URLs to these shared graphics,
which caused 'mixed content' problems in secure environments.

 shared assets between http and https versions that are cached
 even when moving from insecure to secure.

I actually expect to see a cached version of each, not a single, shared object.
We'll be doing a bit more testing, but at this stage, it looks like a
thumbs up for our situation.

Thanks again to all who contributed.

-- 
Andrew Harris
and...@woowoowoo.com
http://www.woowoowoo.com

~~~ * ~~~


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



[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 the style sheet are absolutely referenced
so that sites that are not on the same domain can still benefit from
centralised, cached images and not have to have duplicate local
copies.
* This breaks a bit when a site switches a user to SSL :-(

I once read that you could reference an absolute URL independent of
the schema, so that instead of:
http://some.domain.com/a/path
you could use:
//some.domain.com/a/path
and that the reference would just adopt the current schema, http or
https making everybody happy.

Initial limited tests show me that this might work, but I can't find
the source of the information now, or even whether it's correct usage
- can anyone shed some light?
or even offer an alternative solution!

I'm vaguely thinking there might be an elegant apache solution for
serving the right CSS.

-- 
Andrew Harris
and...@woowoowoo.com
http://www.woowoowoo.com

~~~ * ~~~


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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 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 the style sheet are absolutely referenced
 so that sites that are not on the same domain can still benefit from
 centralised, cached images and not have to have duplicate local
 copies.
 * This breaks a bit when a site switches a user to SSL :-(

 I once read that you could reference an absolute URL independent of
 the schema, so that instead of:
 http://some.domain.com/a/path
 you could use:
 //some.domain.com/a/path
 and that the reference would just adopt the current schema, http or
 https making everybody happy.

 Initial limited tests show me that this might work, but I can't find
 the source of the information now, or even whether it's correct usage
 - can anyone shed some light?
 or even offer an alternative solution!

 I'm vaguely thinking there might be an elegant apache solution for
 serving the right CSS.

 --
 Andrew Harris
 and...@woowoowoo.com
 http://www.woowoowoo.com

 ~~~ * ~~~


 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

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

~~~ * ~~~


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



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
there are no drawbacks.

M


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***