> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
