> Joshua Slive wrote:
> Erik Abele wrote:
>>> The point of the cgi script is to provide not a redirect, but another
>>> page
>>> (with status 300 so far), which points to all the different versions.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, as Paul noted for /docs/ - but what's about /docs-2.(0|1)/ - same
>> CGI script? Fine.
>>> People can update their bookmarks accordingly.
> Ugh. Please just send the 2.x stuff directly where it belongs. There
> is certainly no ambiguity there that needs resolving.
> I'm also -0.666 on the whole CGI script idea. I love stable URLs. I
> hate people making me go through all my pages to change links just
> because they wanted prettier-looking URLs. Do you realize how many
> thousands of links we are talking about? And note also that this will
> completely mess up any links with anchors (mod/core.html#AccessFilename).
> I would much prefer a permanent redirect for all three. If you really
> believe that many people are unintentionally winding up in the 1.3 docs
> when they want to be in the 2.0 docs, then add a message to the top of
> the 1.3 docs pages.
Not sure, but didn't we had a similar discussion some time ago? I can't
find it now. :/
Like Joshua I am against changing the URLs. We have docs-2.0 and docs-2.1
they are really fine. No need to change them.
I'm a litte bit unhappy only with 1.3 and could live with a change to
docs-1.3. This would fit the namespace and would give us the possibility
to add some extra information at /docs. We do not need a script to lead
the people to the new urls. httpd itself can do this.
The only advantage, a CGI-script would have, is that it could do some
search over all doc versions and offer choices. I think, this is
something, google (or some other search engine) can do as well. Let's
use the existing resources.
Kess
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
|