directories

You can really do this any way that works best for you. For example, if you have a site about web design and the URL is webdesign.com

The subjects on your site are HTML, CSS, javascript and contact page.

You can do the following:
webdesign.com/
webdesign.com/html/index.html
webdesign.com/css/index.html
webdesign.com/javascript/index.html
webdesign.com/contact/index.html

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear.
Say I'm on page webdesign.com/html/index.html and I want to include a picture on that page, but it's not in my "html" folder, it's in the main folder. Therefore, I'd have to use either
or

I'd like to use the ../../ concept, but it looks like I'll have to use a lot. Is that bad?

No, not really. You could go either way, and it's debatable as to which method is best. Normally the ../ method is best, but sometimes a full URL is just easier, especially if you're using server generated includes for navigation.

Actually, there are three options:

relative: ../images/whatever.gif
absolute: http://www.domain.com/images/whatever.gif
relative to root: /images/whatever.gif

On most servers, if you use the forward slash first, it means "go to the root and then follow this path", or in this case, go up to domain.com, then go to the images folder and get the whatever.gif.

I remember reading ages ago using the full URL is bad for images etc, the server has to go out of your site then back in to get the image, where as using ../ or whatever the server only goes back or forwards within your sites space.
I suppose a few images wouldnt be bad but image intense sites does get slowed down a lil.
Also if people save your source, they can view your site with images off line, so you'd need .htaccess to pervent hot linking.

A good file system like disaster-master mentioned (without the index.html) is a good clean way to set them up, keep the .html files in the main directory, keep all images in a folder called "images" or "graphics" or something, javascript and CSS could go anywhere, don;t usually have many of them and what other files you have left in another folder.

The full url is more work, yes. Relative to root isn't particularly different from relative, other than you have less ../../ to remember. And it works WAY better for CSS to use relative to root urls.

Blocking viewing images outside of the html page is excellent, so is blocking them being loaded from other urls, and you can also use .htaccess to set the index file for any folder, so it could be any file as the one that shows, including a "you cannot view these files" image, or better yet, either a redirect to the right place where they CAN view files, or a page with the site map on it, to help them get where they are going.

Thanks everyone.
What is .htaccess?

also keep in mind that if you use absolute urls you cant move your site without editing every anchor,image and link in every page. it also increases the filesizes, and may (im not sure) cause a dns lookup for every page.

best to use relative urls. then you can just copy your site to anywhere and it will work fine with no modification.

Same with relative to root also rob. I think thats what you mean but just to clarify.
-dk

hmm... i have always kept my html files in the main directory, any javascript or css in a subfolder, and another subfolder for images. seems to work for me... but then again it can get fairly cluttered if you have alot of html files.

yeah, i always find that relative is better, and eisier because less typing, faster to load, and lesstyping

i usually use one folder under root for includes, one under root for images, sub folders under includes for back end code, and point everything relative to root then into those folders to obtain my includes, images, javascript, WSH, whathaveyou.

When you have maybe 80+ subfolders just with content and documents in them(Like I often do), one place to aim your links at can help alot, especially if your domain name changes at all. Hardcoded domain links are usually a problem waiting to happen. ../../.. links can be an even bigger pain if your structure ever changes. Best to build around the concept that the site will be massive and use practices that make it easy to maintain, rather then think small, grow, and then weep over poor planning.

my $0.02 worth + Tax;)

yeah good point hager, i've been down that road b4, now i use sub folders i.e css,js,images....