Comment by btrettel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by btrettel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Practically speaking these optimizations won't make much of a difference, but I still find them interesting. I have been keeping a list of similar optimizations. Here are some not in the linked article:

- Use relative URLs when possible, i.e., /page.html, no need to specify the protocol.

- Use shorthand CSS properties like font, background, margin, border, padding, and list.

- Use lowercase tags as they compress better. See: https://encode.su/threads/1889-gzthermal-pseudo-thermal-view...

- Use shorthand hex colors.

These optimizations are harmless compared against some of the ones recommended in the linked article...

> Use relative URLs when possible

Protocol relative URLs can also be used for different domains as long as protocol remains the same, which is often the case with https: so widespread, e.g.:

  <script
    src=//code.jquery.com/jquery-3.5.1.slim.min.js
    integrity="sha256-4+XzXVhsDmqanXGHaHvgh1gMQKX40OUvDEBTu8JcmNs="
    crossorigin=anonymous>
  </script>

I thought that "/" was absolute and "../../something/else" was relative.

In my notes I had this called "site relative" following this Stack Exchange post: https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/a/71376/12374

But you're right; relative by itself would refer to relative to the current location. Error on my part in not being specific enough. In retrospect "site relative" is not good terminology.

It's URL relative.

Example, for "http://mysite.com/dir/page1.html":

    * Relative:     "../other_dir/page2.html"
    * URL relative: "/other_dir/page2.html"
    * Absolute:     "http://mysite.com/other_dir/page2.html"

Weird. I have always incorrectly referred to URLs beginning with a “/“ as absolute. Oops.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com