Use relative vs absolute links

[marvinpinto]

This allows the site to be run with any base url and thus easier to test and such.

[digitalcraftsman]

Hello @marvinpinto,

could your explain in more detail why relative urls have an advantage over the use of the base url? You could set the base url to every path you would like in the configs.

One problem with relative urls is that they're relative to the domain of the host and not to the folder in which the site resides. For example, I'm hosting the site in the root directory and want to access some assets:

 www.example.com/path/to/asset.css

This would work fine. But some people decide to host their site in a subfolder, like www.example.com/blog/.

Now, the browser would look for the assets in the root directory like above, but instead the correct path would be

www.example.com/blog/path/to/asset.css

There were also some other discussions about using relative links.

[marvinpinto]

Ahh, you bring up a very good point! Instead of me messing with the Site.BaseURL lines, how do you feel about this:

-@import url("http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Source+Sans+Pro:400,400italic");
+@import url("//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Source+Sans+Pro:400,400italic");

Would allow a site to be served off either http or https, and not throw "insecure content warnings" for the latter. Thoughts?

[digitalcraftsman]

That is a very good idea. I've made the request protocol independent. See fae40ef79655250cd99b044997e4fabed284c18f

[marvinpinto]

Cool :+1:

I'll close this PR then.