Internal links: relative vs. absolute Nov06 '05
Feedback
# (2 of 2): Josh » joahua.com/blog
1 day, 2 hours after the fact. (Mon 07 Nov 2005, 5:11 PM CST)
Yeah I'll confirm that Liferea doesn't have that problem. I'm opposed to absolute links because, reasons of moving domain names aside (which is 'bad' because it breaks permalink structures across the web), it's actually less accessible.
If you save a web page with relative URIs to your computer, it'll work fine. If it has absolute URIs then it's going to be broken. Note I don't just mean your local computer but also mirrors/cache servers, like MirrorDot et al.
Plus, yeah, from a maintenence perspective absolute URIs suck. Ever launched a static site having used absolute URIs during development? Pain.
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave feedback
is published and produced by Matt Thommes - an independent publishing enthusiast, mobile blogger, content creator, informative writer, web developer from Chicago.
Never one to conform, Matt intends to promote the effect the web has on our lives, in an effort to intensify, instruct, and clarify all that is happening around us.
I’ve noticed that links, in my content, that I hard-code as relative don’t always appear as such through feed readers, or other external applications.
You are at the feedback permalink page for: Internal links: relative vs. absolute
# (1 of 2): Jennifer Grucza » jennifergrucza.com
20 hours, 39 minutes after the fact. (Mon 07 Nov 2005, 11:25 AM CST)
It seems to me that this is a simple bug on their side. Hopefully not all feed readers have the same behavior. Have you tried emailing them to ask about it?