On Sun Dec 29 22:58:52 2002 David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As I understand it, using Refresh 0 is bad, > >That's because it is used to simulate a redirect when there is a perfectly >good way of doing this which is blessed by the standards and can let the >browser know that it should update bookmarks (even if it doesn't). Refresh, >although mentioned in the HTML specification is not specified there, and >is, as far as I know, not specified in any other non-proprietory specification. > >> but I suppose using 1 and above > >You are still abusing it for a redirect, and even when using it for its >intended purpose of producing a slide show, in which case 1 second is too >short (it's actually too short to allow some people to get past it with >the back button). However, for anyone not fluent in a language or not reading >visually, any auto-advance time delay suitable for fluent visual users is >likely to be a problem. > >Lynx is often used by blind users without a rich employer to pay for >JAWS. I don't know what JAWS is.
>> instead of 0 isn't bad, so at least for those I would be happy if Lynx would >> automatically redirect. Or is that a problem for some reason? >> >> The only thing I use it for is, if I want an easy way to tell a browser not to >> use this or that static file, but instead some other file, that is very often a >> dynamically generated file. And very often it is mostly because I like to start > >If you can generate dynamic content, you are almost certainly able to configure >the server to generate proper redirects; there is a slight excuse for this >abuse of Refresh for people with cheap web space where they cannot control >meta data, but you can control meta data with dynamic content, so that >restriction shouldn't apply. > OK, I looked into the more proper way to do server side redirect with the Apache web server, which is what I use. Enable the server to accept using .htaccess in the directory the redirect should occur and write something like: redirect /New/dvd_db/index.html http://www.udgaard.com/New/dvd_db/login_screen.cgi in instead of this index.html file, which may now disappear: <META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="0; URL=login_screen.cgi"> However, what do I do if a poor guy wants to do something that his ISP won't let him, eg. CGI, so he would like to use my site for it? He is only able to put a static file there, eg. index.htm with this content: <META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="0; URL=http://www.udgaard.com/XYZ";> Or what? So if someone doesn't have full control of a site, or enough control to do what they want, they have to hack (me included) and then it is a pain if the browser in order to be correct doesn't want to play. Or please tell me I am wrong and that there isn't any situation where the Lynx policy isn't wrong? At least I learned something and thank you for that, but I am not yet convinced that you are right all the way with not accepting the W3C non-recommended hack above. Peter ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
