"SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com> wrote in
news:O%*****************@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
Thanks everybody... The reason I asked is a coworker is complaining
about putting images in their own dir, and if so, the "path would be
too long". As in my example, they would be only one level down from
the HTML doc. I can guess their reasoning would be "it will take
longer for a page to load".... and this is coming from a person that
creates 600k to 800k+ pages full of images....
The phrase "superstitious learning" comes to mind. The time taken for a
browser to transmit an HTTP request after establishing a connection is an
absolutely negligible amount of a page's load time (don't confuse this with
request latency, which can be non-trivial), and in any case isn't
proportional to the length of the URL in the request due to the packet-
based nature of TCP/IP.
In the programming community, it's quite well known that even the very best
programmers' gut feelings about what is or isn't "efficient" are usually
wildly off. Therefore, the very best programmers actually *measure* things
when efficiency is a consideration rather than trusting their hunches.
Similar considerations apply here.
IMNSHO, the most important consideration in setting up a URL scheme is that
you create something stable so URLs of existing pages don't have to be
changed in the future, breaking existing links.