httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Harr" <>
Subject Re: relative vs absolute URL's / CPU processing overhead
Date Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:28:43 GMT
Hi Sivakatirswami,

It shouldn't make too much of an impact, however I do believe the .. is
handled by the web browser (most web browsers).


Sivakatirswami said:
> I am trying to set a development policy that will impact coding of
> future web pages, both those done by hand and those done under
> automation by software that we write to build pages from templates,
> file and from within data bases. I suspect this  has been asked and
> answered but no amount of searching on the web got me anywhere.
> The issue is whether use of absolute URLs to reference images and other
> *.html documents  in the same public_html directory increases CPU
> overhead or not...  in terms of time taken for Apache to serve images
> for that page or serve/reference documents on the same site from links
> on the page. I find two schools of thought, one says absolute URLs will
> require addition overhead on the CPU in terms of DNS required to
> resolved every absolute URL from "the top down," that is not required
> for relative URLs. The other school of thought is telling me that no,
> it doesn't natter, even the relative URL's require a DNS action before
> the image can be sent out along with the .html document and portability
> is the only issue not CPU time. I myself do not know which is true.
> Assume, for example, some 25 images on a page all quite small mostly
> navigation buttons and few larger JPGs in the content itself... assume
> a *.html page  three directory levels deep... if we use
> <img src="http://www.mywebsite/images/somegif.gif" > vs
> <img src="../../../images/somegif.gif">
> do 25 instances of the former slow down serving the page vs 25
> instances of the latter?
> Of course, the issue of portability, being able to view the site
> locally under development on the LAN without opening connections to the
> ISP host outside the LAN where the domain actually lives etc. obviously
> puts relative URL's in the lead for preferred usage... but the overhead
> required to "go to the trouble" to figure out what directory level a
> document will be on when it is finally complete and posted to the site
> and the ease of simply using an absolute URL which will work regardless
> of the page's directory level... begs for use of absolute URL's,
> especially by those who are doing coding by hand and get their
> locations confused and would rather just use an absolute URL instead of
> debugging their image references later if they have the levels wrong
> where "../../image/some.gif"  should really be
> "../../../image/some.gif"
> And besides the CPU overhead question I would like any input from more
> experienced web masters on this issue... if you have "strong feelings"
> about this subject then I would like to know what they are what led you
> to your conclusions.
> Thanks!
> Hinduism Today
> Sivakatirswami
> Editor's Assistant/Production Manager
> Read The Master Course Lesson of the Day at
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server
> Project. See <URL:> for more
> info.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message