«

On 19 Dec 2006 01:34:14 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

> Jim S wrote:
>
>> Where is it conventional to store css files?
>
> CSS is (generally) a site-wide shared feature, so store it somewhere
> that's accessible with an equal path from a page anywhere on the site.
> "/", "/styles/" or "/css/" all work fine. Just make sure you begin the
> references to it with a "/" so that they're absolute.
>
> Photos, in contrast, are usually bound to a particular page. So don't
> have a "/photos/" directory, dumpe everything into it and have to worry
> about a rats-nest of paths and refereneces from other pages. If you
> have a few images used for "page furniture" (borders, rules etc.) then
> _those_ can go in a site-wide directory called "/images/" etc., just
> like the CSS
>
> As always, keep the root directory clear. It's always easier to keep it
> (or any similar directory) clear from the beginning than to fill it to
> the unwieldy level, then have to try and move things out later.

Are you saying that each page should have its own /images folder rather than
having all the images (photos in my case) in one folder?
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

Jim S wrote:

> Are you saying that each page should have its own /images folder rather than
> having all the images (photos in my case) in one folder?

First of all, each page can't have its own "/images" directory. If it
begins with "/", it's root-relative (as Jukka correctly points out) and
there's only going to be one of them.

Nor ought it to have a "images" sub-directory, Not because it's wrong,
but because it's pointless. Keep your per-page images close to the
pages that use them, it's just easier to organise like that. "images"
sub-directories are one more level of hassle and they add nothing.

On 19 Dec 2006 04:48:25 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

> Jim S wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that each page should have its own /images folder rather than
>> having all the images (photos in my case) in one folder?
>
> First of all, each page can't have its own "/images" directory. If it
> begins with "/", it's root-relative (as Jukka correctly points out) and
> there's only going to be one of them.
>
> Nor ought it to have a "images" sub-directory, Not because it's wrong,
> but because it's pointless. Keep your per-page images close to the
> pages that use them, it's just easier to organise like that. "images"
> sub-directories are one more level of hassle and they add nothing.

Silly me, but it was not really what I meant.
At present all my html files (inc index.html) are in the root directory.
Also in there is a folder called 'images' where all the images live.
This must be the shortest path length, but it involves a fair bit of
searching for me since there hundreds of them.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

Jim S wrote:

> At present all my html files (inc index.html) are in the root directory.

Then split your html files up into subdirectories. This has several
advantages:
- Smaller groups of related files are easier to manage (no more
"hundreds in a directory" clutter)

- Related groups can give you more structured URLs, such as
http://example.com/section1/
This also lets you skip the page name when you can just use a directory
and the default document (it's not the only way to do this, but it's
easy, convenient and a benefit of good structure)

- Root is cleaner, and there's a few magic files in there that you
might want to keep obviously visible, without clutter.


> This must be the shortest path length,

Shortest path length is no path length

On 19 Dec 2006 06:34:55 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

> Jim S wrote:
>
>> At present all my html files (inc index.html) are in the root directory.
>
> Then split your html files up into subdirectories. This has several
> advantages:
> - Smaller groups of related files are easier to manage (no more
> "hundreds in a directory" clutter)
>
> - Related groups can give you more structured URLs, such as
> http://example.com/section1/
> This also lets you skip the page name when you can just use a directory
> and the default document (it's not the only way to do this, but it's
> easy, convenient and a benefit of good structure)
>
> - Root is cleaner, and there's a few magic files in there that you
> might want to keep obviously visible, without clutter.
>
>> This must be the shortest path length,
>
> Shortest path length is no path length

Thanks Andy. I'm sure you are right. I wish I had had this advice when I
started.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
http://www.jimscott.co.uk

Jim S wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2006 06:34:55 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> > Jim S wrote:
> >
> >> At present all my html files (inc index.html) are in the root directory.
> >
> > Then split your html files up into subdirectories. This has several
> > advantages:
> > - Smaller groups of related files are easier to manage (no more
> > "hundreds in a directory" clutter)
> >
> > - Related groups can give you more structured URLs, such as
> > http://example.com/section1/
> > This also lets you skip the page name when you can just use a directory
> > and the default document (it's not the only way to do this, but it's
> > easy, convenient and a benefit of good structure)
> >
> > - Root is cleaner, and there's a few magic files in there that you
> > might want to keep obviously visible, without clutter.
> >
> >> This must be the shortest path length,
> >
> > Shortest path length is no path length
>
> Thanks Andy. I'm sure you are right. I wish I had had this advice when I
> started.
> --
> Jim S
> Tyneside UK
> http://www.jimscott.co.uk


another way would be by creating a folder called css (best in lower
case)

it should be stored in where the html and image folder is....

ex:

(page.html)(page2.html) (images folder) (css folder)

when you call the css in your html coding.... don't forget to include
the folder plus name of the css...

Ex:

css/style.css

hope this helps...