On 05/09/2010 23:40, Hassan Schroeder wrote: > On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM, michel <compu...@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> Or, uh, just don't *ever* use relative links, period. > >> Sorry, but I don't understand why. In most cases relative links are great, >> simply because they are 'self-updating' when the page gets moved. > > ? Obviously not. If you move a page with relative links up or down > a hierarchy (whether by actually moving it or referencing it from > "somewhere else", as in this case) it's broken. Period.
+1 Michel, you have this the wrong way round. >> Hard-coding is a last-resort solution. I don't believe I used relative links anywhere in the last 7 or 8 years. > No, it's the only sane way to write URLs. Sorry, I've spent too much > time in the last 15 years fixing pointlessly broken stuff because other > people thought the same thing. +1 NB: if your best solution is to add the rarely* used <base href=, then you are, in effect, causing the links to behave as absolute ones. * It's rare for a reason. p
0x62590808.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
