Paging Murray

I've been reading the mx2004 template bugs thread. You say it's a good
practice to use document relative links when using templates. I know about
the preview issues when using root relative links in templates. I manage a
site that I built using templates. The site exists on two different servers.
One server uses Websphere and serves up jsp pages. These pages don't display
properly if document relative links are used. Some kind of Websphere issue.

Other than the preview issues when developing these pages or updating them,
are there any pitfalls regarding building sites in MX2004 using templates
and root relative links? I always thought root relative links were more
"professional" than document relative. At least that is what I've always
read. Looking at code of countless websites seems to confirm that.

You also mentioned that the particular site in question on the thread was
much larger than any site you would consider using templates on. Is there a
practical limit to a template based site. I would think the larger the site,
the better for templates for ease of maintenance.

I would like to get your take on all of this. Enquiring minds would like to
know.

Thanks
mark

Where did you read this - and how could that possibly be true? It sounds
like the prototypical moose pucky to me.

Well, one of the places was a Macromedia technote on root relative versus
document relative links.

And frankly, you can use either root relative or document relative links in
any site at any time. There is no real restriction that I know of.

I'm well aware of that.

I wouldn't dream of using *only* templates on a site larger than about 100
pages simply because of how much time you'd have to spend uploading changes.

This one has me stumped. If you have, say, a 300 page site and a change to
the main, sitewide nav needs to be made, how is changing 300 pages manually
saving time over changing one template and letting DW do the rest?

You didn't answer my main question. That is, is there any practical reason
for not using root relative links in creating a template based site using
MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

Thanks
mark

I always thought root relative links were more
"professional" than document relative. At least that is what I've always
read.

Where did you read this - and how could that possibly be true? It sounds
like the prototypical moose pucky to me.

And frankly, you can use either root relative or document relative links in
any site at any time. There is no real restriction that I know of.

Is there a
practical limit to a template based site.

I wouldn't dream of using *only* templates on a site larger than about 100
pages simply because of how much time you'd have to spend uploading changes.

Mark:

Well, one of the places was a Macromedia technote on root relative versus
document relative links.

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually post?

how is changing 300 pages manually
saving time over changing one template and letting DW do the rest?

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

You didn't answer my main question. That is, is there any practical reason
for not using root relative links in creating a template based site using
MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Mark Morse" <mark.morse (AT) sanmina-sci (DOT) com> wrote

Where did you read this - and how could that possibly be true? It
sounds
like the prototypical moose pucky to me.

Well, one of the places was a Macromedia technote on root relative versus
document relative links.

And frankly, you can use either root relative or document relative links
in
any site at any time. There is no real restriction that I know of.

I'm well aware of that.

I wouldn't dream of using *only* templates on a site larger than about
100
pages simply because of how much time you'd have to spend uploading
changes.

This one has me stumped. If you have, say, a 300 page site and a change to
the main, sitewide nav needs to be made, how is changing 300 pages
manually
saving time over changing one template and letting DW do the rest?

You didn't answer my main question. That is, is there any practical reason
for not using root relative links in creating a template based site using
MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

Thanks
mark

I always thought root relative links were more
"professional" than document relative. At least that is what I've
always
read.

Where did you read this - and how could that possibly be true? It
sounds
like the prototypical moose pucky to me.

And frankly, you can use either root relative or document relative links
in
any site at any time. There is no real restriction that I know of.

Is there a
practical limit to a template based site.

I wouldn't dream of using *only* templates on a site larger than about
100
pages simply because of how much time you'd have to spend uploading
changes.

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually post?

It's really old. Pre UD I think. Perhaps conventional wisdom has changed
since then. Still, to this day, I see far greater numbers of sites using
root rather than document relative links.

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

Except when you work for a company that considers use of includes a
potential security risk. Therefore bars their use.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

Thanks for the clarification.

mark

Mark:

Well, one of the places was a Macromedia technote on root relative versus
document relative links.

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually post?

how is changing 300 pages manually
saving time over changing one template and letting DW do the rest?

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

You didn't answer my main question. That is, is there any practical reason
for not using root relative links in creating a template based site using
MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

That is, is there any practical
reason for not using root relative links in creating a template based
site using MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

I'd favor root relative. First, because it is easier to move things around
but also because it looks like new IIS versions - for security reasons -
won't allow the file directive to link to includes that seat in directories
*above* the files containing the include (Gary and I had a thread on this
last week).

HTH,
Thierry

Mark Morse wrote:

Where did you read this - and how could that possibly be true? It
sounds like the prototypical moose pucky to me.

Mark:

I see far greater numbers of sites using
root rather than document relative links.

I certainly couldn't say that. On the other hands, I see plenty of people
(mostly new users) having problems with root relative links on their pages,
so my experience is skewed....

Except when you work for a company that considers use of includes a
potential security risk. Therefore bars their use.

Who came up with that? How is that a security risk?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Mark Morse" <mark.morse (AT) sanmina-sci (DOT) com> wrote

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually
post?

It's really old. Pre UD I think. Perhaps conventional wisdom has changed
since then. Still, to this day, I see far greater numbers of sites using
root rather than document relative links.

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include
file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

Except when you work for a company that considers use of includes a
potential security risk. Therefore bars their use.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

Thanks for the clarification.

mark

Mark:

Well, one of the places was a Macromedia technote on root relative
versus
document relative links.

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually
post?

how is changing 300 pages manually
saving time over changing one template and letting DW do the rest?

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include
file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

You didn't answer my main question. That is, is there any practical
reason
for not using root relative links in creating a template based site
using
MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

Except when you work for a company that considers use of includes a
potential security risk. Therefore bars their use.

Includes can be ASP files... What kind of "risk" does the company worry
about?

Thierry

Mark Morse wrote:

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I
usually post?

It's really old. Pre UD I think. Perhaps conventional wisdom has
changed since then. Still, to this day, I see far greater numbers of
sites using root rather than document relative links.

Thierry:

Isn't it to directories above the root?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Thierry Koblentz" <thierry (AT) 212Utah (DOT) invalid> wrote

That is, is there any practical
reason for not using root relative links in creating a template based
site using MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

I'd favor root relative. First, because it is easier to move things around
but also because it looks like new IIS versions - for security reasons -
won't allow the file directive to link to includes that seat in
directories
*above* the files containing the include (Gary and I had a thread on this
last week).

HTH,
Thierry

Mark Morse wrote:
Where did you read this - and how could that possibly be true? It
sounds like the prototypical moose pucky to me.

Mark:

Here is the TN -

http://www.macromedia.com/support/dreamweaver/ts/documents/site_root_rel.htm



Here is the 1st paragraph (as asked by a DW user) -



Issue
The manual says that site-root-relative links are more professional and
easier to use, and necessary if one hopes to use the Library facility of
Dreamweaver. Unfortunately, images then placed in this manner are not
previewing correctly in my browser. What gives?

Here is MM's response -



It is not necessary to use site-root-relative links. Document-relative links
will work just fine. It may seem like the manual recommends that you use
site-root-relative links because they're "more professional", however,
that's not technically correct.



For what it's worth....


--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Mark Morse" <mark.morse (AT) sanmina-sci (DOT) com> wrote

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually
post?

It's really old. Pre UD I think. Perhaps conventional wisdom has changed
since then. Still, to this day, I see far greater numbers of sites using
root rather than document relative links.

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include
file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

Except when you work for a company that considers use of includes a
potential security risk. Therefore bars their use.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

Thanks for the clarification.

mark

Mark:

Well, one of the places was a Macromedia technote on root relative
versus
document relative links.

Hmm - I read those TN's and didn't see that. Is it the one I usually
post?

how is changing 300 pages manually
saving time over changing one template and letting DW do the rest?

It's not. On a site that large, you would have the menu in an include
file.
One change, one file, and upload. Bada bing bada boom.

You didn't answer my main question. That is, is there any practical
reason
for not using root relative links in creating a template based site
using
MX2004? Aside from the preview issues.

No - there's no reason to not use either linking mode.

Hi Murray,
No, as we discussed, it concerns directories *above* the file containing the
include.
It's to prevent people from accessing folders above the root (they could use
.../../../).
That's gonna be a problem for a lot of folks when WHCs update their
software...

Thierry

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Thierry:

Isn't it to directories above the root?