Hoi,
When we were to move away from a set of URL's from et to ekk, a generic
redirect from et to ekk will suffice because there will be a one on one
relation. The et named articles will never be used for anything else. This
is true because this is how the standard works.
For those wikis where the code has been squatted, there is no such
quarantee. It is also quite clear that these codes have been always wrong.
Where we disagree is about the definition of "good" URL's. We either have
our domain structure complying with a framework or we don't. As we DO have a
domain structure that complies to a framework, the URL's that do not comply
are "wrong". Given that the framework allows for the changes to languages,
there is nothing "wrong" with reorganising our domain structure.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/23 Lars Aronsson <[email protected]>
> Kjetil Lenes wrote:
>
> > If you consider Norwegian nynorsk to be a dialect, you have your
> > facts wrong. It is one of two written forms of norwegian, they
> > have the same legal standing.
>
> I'm not talking about dialects or legal standing. I'm talking
> about renaming thousands of URLs, breaking incoming links from
> other websites, for no good reason. Once assigned, good URLs such
> as no.wikipedia.org and et.wikipedia.org should not be changed.
>
> ISO can decide tomorrow that English should be xy and French
> should be ab. We shouldn't follow such changes. It is a totally
> different issue that we consult ISO when we open a new project.
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson ([email protected])
> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
