With regards to this whole new welcome page thingy, I feel the
somewhat redundant need to say my lil bit-o-stuff
Maybe there should simply be a blank page that says something like:
This page is under constuction
And it could go out on a crazy tangent to say something like the
server version as
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 01:12:33PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
My opinion is that the shorter message is better because, by the fact
that it gives no information at all, it is less likely to be
misinterpreted to mean something that the website owner doesn't intend.
+1, as long as there's no
If I was a newbie, and I saw a page that says `it worked`, my immediate
reaction would be `what worked?` and I would start asking the exact
questions we`re trying to stop people from asking.
We can always go with simply displaying a meaningless word like 'Waboozle'.
And so the madness
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 12:08, John Rowe wrote:
If I was a newbie, and I saw a page that says `it worked`, my immediate
reaction would be `what worked?` and I would start asking the exact
questions we`re trying to stop people from asking.
We can always go with simply displaying a
* Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair warning:
As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file
containing only htmlbodyh1It
* Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 01:30:23PM -0400:
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file
containing only htmlbodyh1It works!/h1/body/html
+1
Good call, Josh.
--
Chip Cuccio
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
- there are 1000 people with 1000 other opinions.
For that reason, I'm ++1 for taking this minimalistic variant. Otherwise we
get never a consensus about this darn dummy page.
That's an exceedingly good point. Make it so. :)
+1.
--Cliff
On 06.10.2004, at 18:07, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
- there are 1000 people with 1000 other opinions.
For that reason, I'm ++1 for taking this minimalistic variant.
Otherwise we
get never a consensus about this darn dummy page.
That's an exceedingly
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
No, because this is a very confusing and ambiguous statement from the
perspective of a random web surfer who stumbles on the page. Their
response is Why are you saying I installed a webserver on my computer?
This must be some kind
Joshua Slive wrote:
My opinion is that the shorter message is better because, by the fact
that it gives no information at all, it is less likely to be
misinterpreted to mean something that the website owner doesn't intend.
I won't object if someone wants to put another piece of text there, as
From what I can see, the reason for providing a short and simple
welcome page is to avoid confusing people by giving them too much
information. The question I would ask is, are you just trading one set
of problems for another? How many people are we going to confuse by not
giving enough
-Original Message-
From: Graham Leggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bye bye welcome page
Joshua Slive wrote:
My opinion is that the shorter message is better because, by the fact
that it gives
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
We can always go with simply displaying a meaningless word like 'Waboozle'.
I can see the bugtraq advisory now: Waboozle virus on the loose. ;)
Joshua Slive wrote:
As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file
containing only htmlbodyh1It works!/h1/body/html
Is it possible to say a little bit more
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file containing
only htmlbodyh1It
Joshua Slive wrote:
No, because this is a very confusing and ambiguous statement from the
perspective of a random web surfer who stumbles on the page. Their
response is Why are you saying I installed a webserver on my computer?
This must be some kind of security breach. Call in the marines!
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
Point... How about The website you have accessed has not yet been
Or:
The website you have accessed is running but has not yet been...
that speaks to both.
configured. Please try to access this website again later.? It's
directed at end users, and
Hi There,
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
The website you have accessed is running but has not yet been...
The website you have accessed is running but has no content at the moment.
or:
It works!But i am sorry, there is no content at the moment. Try again
later.
I agree with the originator of this. I have had to deal with way too many
complaints from users re: Why when I go to x does it think I have a
webserver on my computer?
Just a suggestion that I merged into my RPM builds. Don't put an
index.html file at all. Put test.html and make sure Indexes are
19 matches
Mail list logo
