[wp-trac] Re: [WordPress Trac] #6599: Inpage URLs can be realtive instead of being always absolute.

[WordPress Trac]

#6599: Inpage URLs can be realtive instead of being always absolute.
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hakre            |        Owner:  anonymous     
     Type:  feature request  |       Status:  closed        
 Priority:  normal           |    Milestone:  Future Release
Component:  General          |      Version:  2.7           
 Severity:  normal           |   Resolution:  invalid       
 Keywords:                   |  
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Changes (by hakre):

  * version:  => 2.7
  * milestone:  => Future Release


Comment:

 Glad to see you agree to the specs, so we can get into a factual
 agrumentation again.

 Replying to [comment:6 Otto42]:
 > Replying to [comment:5 hakre]:
 > > Because a Permalink is an URL/URI, writing it as a relative or
 absolute one does not make any difference. Your argumentation just fails
 here.
 >
 > I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

 Please name the point where I am actually mistaken.


 >
 > If I have a permalink that looks like this:
 >
 > http://example.com/blog/2009/name-of-post
 >
 > And it contains a relative image link, like "image.jpg", then that is
 going to resolve to http://example.com/blog/2009/name-of-post/image.jpg by
 the browser.

 You mean, if there is a link on the page "http://example.com/blog/2009
 /name-of-post" with the relative URL "image.jpg".

 >
 > The problem is that image.jpg does not exist there, as the entire
 permalink structure (everything after "blog") is pretend.

 I have never spoken about putting senseless links into a page. Absolute
 links which are senseless would point to the same 404 files. For example
 taking the absolute URL "http://example.com/blog/2009/name-of-
 post/image.jpg" to link to that nonexisting image would lead to a 404 as
 well. It is a question of creating URL that leads to a 200. That URL can
 be realtive or absoulte.

 > It's make-believe. The directories don't actually exist. That's what the
 rewriting is all about.
 Can you imagine that it is possible to provide a valid realtive link?

 > > Another misunderstanding. Relative URLs are always built upon the
 current URL -or- the BASE element. The term "from root" is misleading here
 and only named so that you can start another invalid and misleading
 argumentation:
 >
 > Umm.. No. Sorry, but you're wrong again.

 You said you stick with the terms. I do not need to speak for myself with
 that one, just take a look into the docs:
 http://www.w3.org/Addressing/rfc1808.txt with Focus on Sections "3.
 Establishing a Base URL" and "4.  Resolving Relative URLs".

 > Here's two examples:
 > IMG SRC="/blog/uploads/2009/image.jpg"
 > IMG SRC="image.jpg"
 >
 > Both of those are relative.
 TRUE

 > The first one is root-relative (as it include the leading /) , and using
 that format would actually work. A browser would not resolve it from the
 current path, but from the current domain (the leading slash makes it do
 that).

 As in the first point: You can't compare an 404 leading links with a 200
 leading link. If the Post has the following Permalink:
 "http://example.com/supersite/special/blog/2009/name-of-post"

 > Here's two examples:
 > IMG SRC="/blog/uploads/2009/image.jpg"
 > IMG SRC="image.jpg"

 will lead to 404 both.


 >
 > > Well if there would be "a very good reason", then please name it. Or
 proof the Opposite of: "Using absolute URLs (and/or the BASE Element) in
 Webapps is for coding noobs. This is done by those who did not understand
 how links work or who do not want to solve linking properly and stable."
 >
 > In order to disprove that nonsensical claim, it would first have to be
 demonstrated at all in some way. The idea that one-way or another-way is
 for "noobs" is simply ridiculous on the face of it.
 >
 > Relative URLs make sense in some situations, and absolute URLs make
 sense in others. There is never a one-size-fits-all solution, and only
 "noobs" would think otherwise. ;-)

 Well, I do not like to have that much focus on the Noob argument but more
 in the arguments for using realtive links:

 - There is actually no argument for or against realative vs. absolute.
 - All links are absolute at least for a user using a website.
 - The website itself can therefore provide relative links.
 - There is no need to have absolute links (only) in the output from
 server-side.
 - There is _absolutely_ no need to have absolute links hardcoded in
 database data. Infact, this leads to problems (as documented).
 - Because there is no need that there must be absolute links in the
 output, it is more wise to handle relative URIs in (database) data to
 convert them to links useable to (the current and often changing) Blog
 configuration.

 >
 > > Have you ever taken a look how WordPress does link to files? That is
 all but _not_ done properly. In opposite to what you write, the URLs hard
 hardcoded into the content and not generated by "using bloginfo('url')"
 when the page is displayed.
 >
 > I am aware of that. It's a problem, admittedly, but if you've examined
 the importer, there's a method it uses to correct those links when you use
 an Export/Import and migrate attachments in that manner.

 Well, that is why it is sooo much easier to get over these problems and
 provide absolute links. So if wordpress would use realtive links, that
 would be a sign that it has been taken care of something.

 >
 > > Re-Opening this as feature request. It's not invalid and many pplz.
 over and over dicuss about this in the community.
 >
 > Closing it as invalid again, because it is. Don't reopen it without some
 form of, you know, logic. Or at least knowing what you're talking about.

 Having relative pointer to image/file data within blog-post-data can help
 to more easily migrate and reconfigure a blog.

 >
 > Also, Trac is not the place for debate on whether something is a good
 idea or not. Take it to wp-hackers if you want to debate it.

 This is a feature request not a debate.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/6599#comment:9>
WordPress Trac <http://trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software