2009/2/24 Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>: > 2009/2/24 <[email protected]>: >> Hello, say, when we are running our link checker programs and see >> HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently >> HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK >> HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently >> HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK >> HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently >> HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 >> --> 200 OK >> HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently >> HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> >> 200 OK >> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently >> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> >> 200 OK >> does that mean we should hardwire those extra long paths into our web >> pages instead of the less worrisome versions we are using now? >> >> I mean when I see a 301, I update my webpages, but momma said stay out >> of alleys... > > Unfortunately I don't think HTTP has a status code for "move > permanently but this redirect will always be here". 301 is probably > the best option out of what there is.
Might not 302 be better in that it indicates the redirect will always be there, though the target might move in the future? Where 301 suggests that the client "ought to automatically re-link references", 302 suggests "client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future request". Although 302 indicates temporary move and 301 indicates permanent move, since the Main_page could be renamed, 302 might be more fitting anyway... -- Oldak Quill ([email protected]) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
