SourceMan
2015-11-12 13:44:04 +08:00
The W3C standards might allow for no protocol, but you would never just put "//" - that's part of the protocol ("http://", "https://", "ftp://", etc.). This usage is technically incorrect. It could cause minor issues on some browsers (although probably not on newer ones).
W3C 标准允许省略协议,但你不应该直接用"//",这只是协议("http://", "https://", "ftp://", 等)的一部分。这中用法从技术的角度来说是不正确的。它在某些浏览器上会有点小问题(经管新版浏览器未必如此)
Does it matter for SEO? Well, that's a bit trickier. Google tend to ignore base href unless there are ambiguous relative URLs, like canonical tags that have no base URL and are unclear. Practically speaking, it's probably not a huge problem, but it is possible for it to cause issues down the road.
这对 SEO 有影响么?好吧,有点小纠结。 Google 倾向于忽略 base href ,除非在相对路径上有歧义,比如 canonical 的标签不支持 base href 。实际上,用 base href 现在可能没什么大问题,但也可能在未来引起问题
Either way, if it's on a sitewide template, it's a 5-minute job, and what they have is wrong. I'm not one to knock devs (I've been a dev and I've managed devs), but they need to stop arguing and just fix it.
不管这样,如果你的网站用了模板,这就是 5 分钟能修复的问题。我不是那种打击开发的人(我曾经也是一个研发,还管理研发团队),但他们确实需要停止争吵,简单修复一下就行了。