httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo ...@perlig.de>
Subject Re: [proposed] remove docs/1.3/
Date Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:28:29 GMT
Folks, please keep this discussion on docs@, too.

* Rich Bowen wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Tim Bannister wrote:
> > On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote:
> >> On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >>> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has
> >>> been dead.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site,
> >>> altogether?
> >>
> >> I find that from time to time, v1.3 documentation comes up in Google
> >> searches, which probably confuses users who don't know what they're
> >> looking at.
> >
> > There are ways to leave it there but persuade crawlers not to index it.
> > Maybe even serve it with 410 status and some JavaScript to point out
> > that the page is deprecated.
> >
> > I think the first one is worthwhile and the second one is not worth the
> > extra effort.
>
> We're already using the
>
> <link rel="canonical" href="http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/"/>
>
> to tell Google not to index the pages, although that's not (yet) on all
> of the 1.3 doc pages - Unfortunately that's something of a manual process
> due to the fact that the 1.3 docs are in HTML, not generated, and that
> not every page in the 1.3 docs has an exact corollary in the /current/
> docs.
>
> There's certainly more we can do to purge it from search engines without
> making it completely unavailable.
>
> I'm somewhat torn on whether we want it to go away entirely - I tend to
> think that what Nick suggests - removing it but making it available as a
> tarball - satisfies those folks who are still running 1.3 for some reason
> that they consider legitimate.
>
> So, +1 to removing the /docs/1.3/ directory, and also to tarring it up
> and making it downloadable from a errordocument that loads for /docs/1.3/
> requests. A .htaccess file with the content negotiation stuff would also
> be a friendly thing to include in that, as Nick suggests.
>
> Prior to doing that, there are some changes that we need to make the
> pointers in them to the current docs actually go the right place. Some of
> the pages reference 2.2 as the current version, and also /current/ still
> points to 2.2. So, give us a moment to resolve those two issues …
>
> --
> Rich Bowen
> rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
> rbowen@apache.org



-- 
print "Just Another Perl Hacker";

# André Malo, <http://pub.perlig.de/> #

Mime
View raw message