* Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> At 07:32 AM 12/4/2002, Andr� Malo wrote:
>>>For the 2.0 ist probably too late, but should we consider to create a
>>>directory structure like
>>>
>>>/docs/<version>
>>>
>>>? (<version> == major version aka 2.1, 2.2 etc)
>> Why not create the desired URI structure now, and redirect /docs/,
>> /docs-2.0/,
>> etc. However, as httpd.apache.org/docs/ are 1.3 today... Perhaps we choose
>> a new nick for the docs (simply /manual/2.0/ etc?) and/or keep the revision
>> as the top-level identifier (e.g. httpd.apache.org/2.0/manual/)?
>
> I think that if I was starting again today, this is certainly what I would
> do. But I'm not sure I see the point in switching now. There are MANY
> inbound links to the various manual pages, and while the redirect would
> keep from them breaking, it will still cause extra round-trips as well as
> problems with search engines, etc. I personally prefer to keep the URL
> stable. (But I would not object if a concesus developed to the contrary.)
/manual/<version> makes sense, if the manual is the only version specific
thing on httpd.apache.org
/<version>/manual/ other way 'round, of course...
I don't see, what else is version specific, but because we don't know about
the future, I'm +1 for the last scheme:
/2.1/manual/
for the 2.1, etc.
if we're at the point of 2.4 or so, we may start to setup redirects from
/docs/ and /docs-2.0/ to the new scheme. At 3.2 or 3.4 we may remove the
old structure completely (410?) and support only the new schemes. (which
aren't actually *new* at this time... ;-)
IMHO.
nd
--
"Eine Eieruhr", erkl�rt ihr Hermann, "besteht aus einem Ei. Du nimmst
das Ei und kochst es. Wenn es hart ist, sind f�nf Minuten um. Dann wei�t
du, da� die Zeit vergangen ist."
-- Hannes H�ttner in "Das Blaue vom Himmel"
