[thelist] mod_rewrite question

[.jeff]

nickolay,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Nickolay Kolev
>
> j> why can't you use root relative urls?
>
> I never said I cannot. Did I?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no, but it was implied that either you couldn't or you wouldn't.  and, since
absolute urls are really the best way to go and not using them makes no
sense in your case, the only logical thing to assume was that you couldn't.
so i was wrong, it was a wouldn't (or would rather not).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> It will perhaps mean using a more "flat" directory
> structure, to save length from the "almost absolute"
> links.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

why?  organize all you want.  so you're sending a few extra bytes with the
longer, root relative url, but the advantages far outweigh that small cost.
and a hidden bonus is that all those extra folders will contribute to your
page rank if they contain keywords important to your content.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I generally like to keep things well organised in many
> folders.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

continue doing so.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> j> a word of advice to everyone else.  whenever possible
> j> use root relative urls whether it be for links, image
> j> paths, css paths, paths to external javascript files,
> j> whatever.  it'll make life so much easier.
>
> If you constantly move things around, which you
> shouldn't be doing really, it certainly saves a lot of
> updating. If you have long pahts, however, and your
> files tend to stay where they are put it makes links
> hrefs unnecessary long.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i seriously don't think the few extra bytes are worth losing sleep over.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/