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.)
One thing to note, if you are using CSP's
upgrade-insecure-requests
, you can safely use protocol-agnostic URLs (//example.com
).As of December 2014, Paul Irish's blog on protocol-relative URLs says:
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.There are a number of potential reasons, though they're all not particularly crucial:
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.