Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 69606 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2010 11:25:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 25 Oct 2010 11:25:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 31710 invoked by uid 500); 25 Oct 2010 11:24:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 31409 invoked by uid 500); 25 Oct 2010 11:24:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 31401 invoked by uid 99); 25 Oct 2010 11:24:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:24:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of vetteparty@hotmail.com does not designate 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:24:51 +0000 Received: from ben.nabble.com ([192.168.236.152]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PALAE-0004XJ-Gz for solr-user@lucene.apache.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:24:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:24:30 -0700 (PDT) From: PeterKerk To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <1288005870519-1766762.post@n3.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1287741544693-1751641.post@n3.nabble.com> <248601.65036.qm@web82107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1287840611784-1758054.post@n3.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Solr Javascript+JSON not optimized for SEO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Offering both...that sounds to me like duplicating development efforts? Or am I overseeing something here? Nick Jenkin-2 wrote: > > NB: "it's faster" is not a valid answer! > Why is it not valid? Because its not necessarily faster or...? And what about user experience? Instead of needing to refresh the entire page I can now do partial page updates? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Javascript-JSON-not-optimized-for-SEO-tp1751641p1766762.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.