On 4/29/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An absolute file system path? Or absolute path as in the full > > URL, including protocol? Damn it, now I'm confused. I get > > the point though, I think, if you mean a site where you have > > to replace /something with /somethingelse all over the place. > > No, I simply meant that if you copy a web page from one server to another, > absolute URLs to things on the first server will still resolve, while any > other sort of URLs won't.
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. Pure relative links would theoretically be the easiest to move/copy, as what if the site root name changes? Back to search/replace. At any rate, your use of the term "absolute URL" instead of the aforementioned "absolute path", doesn't bode well for a defense of the logical-ness of calling it an absolute "path". ;-) > That's why I too like the "set the paths in the application.cfc" > > type deal, since you gotta have 'em usually anyways. Why not > > use variables and change them instead. :-) > > That's fine, if you're writing programs instead of static HTML documents. > But this is a problem that can affect HTML documents, of course. Of course. I wasn't suggesting using vars in HTML... in fact, I don't think you can really- html is pretty much a data wrapper, not a data doer. I would prefer my html be generated, as to avoid the issue in the first place. If it's generated, you can use notation making it easier to read/understand. Relative, absolute, whatever. That way if poor Jane Doe doesn't have access to the generator, at least everything is easily readable, and beyond that, CONSISTENT! Feel free to wield that perl script on the html, it's all parseable, straightaway. I think that the consistency is the main factor - so long as you're not mixing ../somefile.ext with /somedir/somefile.ext, it shouldn't be too bad. *cough* yeah, theoretically, I should add. :-) > Is that the point of site relative paths? I can dig that. I > > was just being thick headed. But I still, in the context of > > the browser, site root relative and absolute are the same > > thing. ... > > The point is to be able to say "site-root-relative" instead of "something > that is absolute within the context of my server, but relative within the > context of multiple servers". I can dig it. I still stand by the assertion that it's more of an absolute path than a relative one. Like I said, if it doesn't start with some dots, it ain't relative. Of course everything relates to something, and "relative" doesn't mean much, in and of itself, so it's logical to say "site relative", but what gets me is the mixing of the meaning of relative. In one instance, "relative URLs", it means relative to the current location using dot path notation. In another, "site root relative", it is relative to the site root (only it's not relative in the same sense - you don't use dots at all, and in fact, if you looked at the URL, you'd say, "that's an absolute") 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". See, it can just get silly, and thus my preference for not muddying the waters by calling absolute URLs absolute paths. I guess I'd focus more on the delineation between dot path notation and relative url, if I had to pick an area to enrich linguistically, instead of calling a frog "teddy" and expecting people to know teddy == frog - so to speak. But it matters not- language is a living thing, and words mean what they mean, which is whatever they currently mean. Once it's in- grained, it's over. Only now, when we see the department of war being called the department of peace, do we have a chance. Take heed! [-| Maybe the french have it right, only approved words should be considered part of the language. Heh. There's a great book, titled something along the lines of "the professor, the madman, and the making of the oxford-english dictionary", that really opened my eyes as to the reality of words, in any language. I'd always thought things were so concrete - elephant is not spelled oliophant, etc.., until I realized we (as in society) make it all up. There is no "correct" way to spell something, it's just whatever is most used. Plain and simple. If everyone got together and decided to call purple "green", then that's it, end of story, green is what you or I would call purple (Only we wouldn't because no one would understand what we were talking about). Eh, I can't seem to help getting long winded. You should have seen the first draft, yeowzers! Well, if you have a compelling argument as to why I should start calling URLs by yet another name (path?), instead of say, leaning towards "partial URI" or "absolute URI", I'm all ears. It's just sad that there are already words that dismiss the cloud of uncertainty in existence, alas, unknown. I haven't put forth a very sound argument, I know. Especially as I do my fare share to perpetuate "relative URLs" instead of using "dot path notation URLs" or "partial URIs", which is closer to what I mean when I say it. Eh, maybe I'll start using them instead, and help shape the English language. Or find an even better word(s), that more accurately depicts what I'd like to say/mean. But are we debating? Did you offer a defense of why my preference needed an argument? Still think "absolute path" is a good word for it? I'll concede site relative, as you could conceivably grasp what it means without needing more info. :-) I enjoy trying to express myself, albeit I do it fairly poorly, and my grammar is mostly sucky. Thanks for the stimulation (ah, the spice of life). Sorry to get all long and mush-mouthed, that's no way to debate, if that's even what's occurring. Not much of a way to hold a conversation either, for that matter. Man I gotta try condensing better. [-: Well, the pizza is here, and a long day of moving furniture has worked up an apatite, so without further Ado- Toodaloo! :)3|\| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:239128 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
