On 6/27/06, Noirin Plunkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:48:56AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Any other solution would result in MANY broken links (due to changes
> in doc structure, not to mention the fact that some people still
> really do want to link to the 1.3 docs).
Other people's broken links aren't really our problem.
Ahhhhh (hear me screaming), of course they are ;-)
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
One of the most important characteristic of URIs are that they refer
to a specific resource permanently. That is FAR more important than
the fact that having /docs/something map to 1.3 is not "pretty" from a
visual perspective.
Historic or otherwise, I can't see a single reason /docs/something
shouldn't go to the most recent version of the docs. Always. Even when
that's not 2.2, or whatever.
Here's two. I'm sure I could come up with many more:
1) There are many resources in the 1.3 docs that have moved or been
removed in the 2.2 docs. These would result in perfectly valid links
getting sent to nowhere.
2) It is perfectly reasonable for someone running 1.3 to want to point
their users to a specific item in the 1.3 docs. For example, many
sites point to our docs to give users info on how to setup
authentication. Since this process has changed greatly in 2.2, if we
redirected we would be breaking other peoples' docs.
We already have a link for the most recent docs: /trunk/. If we want
to create another permanent link for the most recent released version,
fine. But don't break thousands of links just to make things look
nicer!
Anyway, we've hashed this out before and I don't see any problem with
the compromise we arrived at.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
