It's been an oft-discussed question on StackOverflow what this means:
<script src="//cdn.example.com/somewhere/something.js"></script>
This gives the advantage that if you're accessing it over HTTPS, you get HTTPS automatically, instead of that scary "Insecure elements on this page" warning.
But why use protocol-relative URLs at all? Why not simply use HTTPS always in CDN URLs? After all, an HTTP page has no reason to complain if you decide to load some parts of it over HTTPS.
(This is more specifically for CDNs; almost all CDNs have HTTPS capability. Whereas, your own server may not necessarily have HTTPS.)
As of December 2014, Paul Irish's blog on protocol-relative URLs says:
2014.12.17: Now that SSL is encouraged for everyone and doesn’t have performance concerns, this technique is now an anti-pattern. If the asset you need is available on SSL, then always use the
https://asset.
Unless you have specific performance concerns (such as the slow mobile network mentioned in Zakjan's answer) you should use https:// to protect your users.
Because of performance. Establishing of HTTPS connection takes much longer time than HTTP, TLS handshake adds latency delay up to 2 RTTs. You can notice it on mobile networks. So it is better not to use HTTPS asset URLs, if you don't need it.
One thing to note, if you are using CSP's upgrade-insecure-requests, you can safely use protocol-agnostic URLs (//example.com).
There are a number of potential reasons, though they're all not particularly crucial:
- How about the next time every business with an agenda pushes a new protocol? Are we going to have to swap out thousands of strings again then? No thanks.
- HTTPS is slower than HTTP of same version
- If any of the notes listed at caniuse.com for HTTP/2 are a problem
- Conceptually, if the server enforces the protocol, there is no reason to be specific about it in the first place. Agnosticism is what it is. It's covering all your bases.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28446314/why-use-protocol-relative-urls-at-all