dude, you completed missed my point (or we are just off on some tangent not related) of why it's recommended for full urls in description or in an email and why w3c flagged it.
example: for smileys, the non-full url is '/images/graemlins/default/smile.gif'
that works well and good, if that url is on the site itself, but blows up in an email where it's NOT being read from the site itself.
example (i copied raw html from my initial post in this topic where i have the wink smiley):
ps: i added 3 < div id="xxx" > around the major chunks of the
html side of the template, so you css'ers can go
crazy with some fancy smanchy stuff. for those
who don't know or care about it, the divs will
be transparent anyway
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/default/wink.gif"
alt=";\)" title="wink" height="15" width="15">
assume i email that to myself and then try to read it ... dead smiley link
what you end up in an email is broken links for every smiley and where i didn't notice it in the feed was ok. and the feed will be ok with relative urls, but still not a w3c recommended practice. emails are prime example, where it just plain blows up.
so bottom line is w3c makes sense and the fix was a minor one to be in compliance.
no need for redir or whatever hokus pokus to fix this problem. i just needed to do it right in the first place and thank god for feed validators as well as the other ones.
regardless. back to topic..
Previous Topic
Index