Perrin Harkins wrote:
Chris Shiflett wrote:Look a little further down that page:http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4.2
"/*Note.* Some user agents support the use of META <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-META> to refresh the current page after a specified number of seconds, with the option of replacing it by a different URI. Authors should *not* use this technique to forward users to different pages, as this makes the page inaccessible to some users. Instead, automatic page forwarding should be done using server-side redirects."/
I might be overzealous about this, but I dislike seeing HTTP-EQUIV meta tags used when actual HTTP headers are available to do the same thing. It's fine if there's a reason for it, but usually people do it because they don't realize they can just send a real header instead..
No, I actually agree with you completely on that last bit and am of the opinion that using the http-equiv attribute is a leftover habit from the early days of Web development when manipulating HTTP headers was not as convenient as it is now.
I just wanted to mention that the meta tag as well as its http-equiv attribute are both official parts of the HTML standard and have been for quite some time. Netscape also introduced things like cookies and SSL, but that should in no way discredit the technology.
The W3C's stance on refresh is the same for the header as well as the meta tag: they did not originally intend for it to be used to specify a *different* URL as a rudimentary method of redirection. They meant it to be used to refresh the current resource only. However, this "rogue" practice of redirection is quite common with both the header and the meta tag and is very well supported by browsers. In fact, I am not aware of any Web client that supports refresh but also limits the URL to the current resource only.
It is also the only option for the "pause, then redirect" behavior the original poster desired that I can think of.
Chris
