----- Original Message -----
From: "Pid" <p...@pidster.com>
To: "Tomcat Users List" <users@tomcat.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: URL Rewrite
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.
PID, I would think that whatever method a person uses, it can bring
problems. There is enough software out there to check a site for broken
links, better to use them when making changes, even if they aren't totally
reliable. Funny about them, one claimed I had 12 broken links and wanted $5
to tell me what they are, while free ones found 1 or 2. A fourth software
claimed 38 broken links and wanted a credit card number to tell me what they
where. I am keeping my $5 and my credit card number.
Michel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
