On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Pid <p...@pidster.com> wrote: > 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 > Are we talking about absolute links like "http://example.com/test"; or "/test" (as opposed to "test"). If we are talking about the former my advise would be pretty much opposite to others advise. You pretty much prevent mirroring and deploying applications to multiple environments becomes a pain if you specify the domain part of a url for all URLS.
Much better when working on a team is to define what url syntax should be used along with specific guidelines on how or why each part is used. I've commonly run into problems where people have hard coded full absolute urls into a deployable artifact (not java) alongside the the content it was supposed to be pointing to. After a while the company decides to no longer host the resource and the website of everyone who has that artifact breaks. Regards, Wes
