allow relative urls & those which contain anchors about acf HOT 6 CLOSED

Interestingly enough, it is 3 years later and ACF still does not support Relative links.

from acf.

Interestingly enough, it is 3 years later and ACF still does not support Relative links.

Nor should it, if the goal of that specific field type is to provide link format validation (which it presumably is), per the HTML5 specification, which states that the URL property of an HTML5 input (ie. <input type="url"> should have "A single properly-formed absolute URL" as its entry, for the input to be valid. @elliotcondon indicated as much in his response above.

from acf.

Hi @lordspace

Thanks for the request.

The HTML5 'url' input does not currently allow for a non 'http' links (relative url).
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3670437/input-type-url-for-relative-urls

For now, I suggest using a basic text input which won't have any built in browser validation.

from acf.

from acf.

From:  Eric Moore Why couldn't there be a toggle for which type you wanted the link to be?  ACF seems to feel strongly about the absolute type, so that type could be the default selection.

Respectfully, Eric, I suspect that you're missing the point of the URL field. As far as I can tell, it's there SPECIFICALLY for when you need a simple URL field input with strict input format validation. So changing that behaviour would inherently defeat its entire purpose.

If you want a field for relative links, then you implicitly don't care about URL format validation for your use-case, and thus you have multiple other options at your fingertips:

1. Use a "link" field type (that field provides the dual option of typing your own link and selecting from site posts/pages, and does support relative links — I just tested it to double check)
2. Use relationship field to establish your in-site linking, and then resolve the link url in your template (this is actually a lot more robust than storing relative link values manually, since it's based on post_id, so if you move the URL/path to the relational target post/page, the resolved links will automatically change to reflect the new path).
3. Just use a plain text field (as @elliotcondon suggested three years ago)

Given the array of different ways to skin this cat: what's driving the fixation on having the URL field do something that it presumably wasn't designed to do?

from acf.

Probably could go ahead and mark this as closed.

from acf.