vinpkl Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 hi all i m using htaccess to rewrite my urls. so i have to use the full path in all my images & scripts like http://www.domain.com/images/logo.gif i would like to know that if in my page i write everytime the full path for all the images then will my page take much time to load vineet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zq29 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 You shouldn't notice any difference. Though, you can just use /images/logo.gif instead of http://www.domain.com/images/logo.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Strictly speaking, http://www.domain.com/images/logo.gif should take longer than /images/logo.gif because you're sending 21 more bytes. It's negligible though and by no means noticeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinpkl Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 You shouldn't notice any difference. Though, you can just use /images/logo.gif instead of http://www.domain.com/images/logo.gif hi Semi thanks for the reply. i tried using /images/logo.gif but was not able to view my images. so i have to add to the full path. but if it doesnt make diference in loading then i have no prob in writing full path vineet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinpkl Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 Strictly speaking, http://www.domain.com/images/logo.gif should take longer than /images/logo.gif because you're sending 21 more bytes. It's negligible though and by no means noticeable. hi daniel as u said it will not be noticeable then i can use full path. earlier i had doubt that it my slow the loading of page. but u clear my doubts. thanks. vineet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 as u said it will not be noticeable then i can use full path. Consider this: Your name is Google. You serve millions of pages every day. Now imagine that you started to use the full URL instead of just the path on all links, images, etc. The size difference could easily amount of several terabytes per month. The unnoticeableness only applies to a single request taken out of context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinpkl Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 as u said it will not be noticeable then i can use full path. Consider this: Your name is Google. You serve millions of pages every day. Now imagine that you started to use the full URL instead of just the path on all links, images, etc. The size difference could easily amount of several terabytes per month. The unnoticeableness only applies to a single request taken out of context. hi daniel i keep this in mind. but will have to use the full path till i get any alternative. also my website will be for the limited one country. we cannot compete with google. vineet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.