Don't break existing links!

[George Pauliuc]

--=-+ZfprXw36MzKfyZaAgzk
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Vi, 2002-12-06 at 17:38, Michael Nahrath wrote:
> There is no special announcement to the user neccesary.
> Sending http: error code 301 _is_ the announcement to the UserAgent.

The UA means in common terms browser.  And browsers are known not to use
all standards and to badly implement the standars they support.  Are you
sure this is a valid option?  Or just another way to puzzle the poor
visitor?

> No need to bother the user with this. "Don't mention the mechanics!"

Telling the visitor in plain language "this is the link you should use
from now on" has nothing to do with mecanics.  And avoids lots of
trouble.

> Some scripting languages are able to send fully correct HTTP-headers too.

Wrong.  All scripting languages that have some connection with the web
and can send headers CAN do that.  It's easy: the header is something
you make (with the help of the script) following what's written in a RFC
or other standard. =20

> [Please don't think I understand anything about perl and shell scripting!
>  I made these up by a fiend's help once. That's all I have.]

I do understand that ;-)

> > It isn't portable as long as you give the full URL
> > "http://www.gnupg.org/path/to/your/file.html".  If you use something
> > like "./new/directory/file.html" or "../../directory/file.html" should
> > work well with mirrors as well.
> I fear you can't do this.

Examples please.  As long as the browser understands the path, it should
work.  Don't remember seeing anything against that in the documents I
have.

> Maybe Browsers would expand the relative URL to a fully qualified one if
> they get it via <meta http-equiv=3D"..."> but I am not shure about this.

Plase, please, make up your mind.  You say "you can't" and three
paragraphs below you say "I'm not sure".  Shouldn't all the argument be
rephrased like "I don't know for sure but I feel this won't work
because..." - all in just one paragraph?

> > This is a no IMHO as you have such a clean code right now and tend to
> > follow the standards meaning portability.
> IIUC negotiating <http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/index.html.de to
> http://www.gnupg.org/(de)/documentation/index.html is a Caudium only
> "feature". That will make portability to other servers a problem anyway.

So... let me think.

I say something about standards, code cleanliness (is there such a word
in English?) and portability.  You answer with "is a Caudium only
feature".  What is the logic of your answer?

--=-+ZfprXw36MzKfyZaAgzk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: 'See search.keyserver.net for my signing key'

iD8DBQA98NibEM28XWGBdX8RAoCnAJ9mfUOGEY/nroOVkG4Wu4Xq8qys4wCfZ7qA
Pem/FtdkSyKndBgchBJNHRc=
=Rsok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-+ZfprXw36MzKfyZaAgzk--