> I second that. > > Also, it seems as if the starting point of this discussion somehow gets lost. > > It was about the javascript redirection simply not working for many million > browser configurations - like Firefox running noscript, or IExplorer when > extra secure configured (i.e. because you do not add sites to the whitelist > when they do not mandatory require JS to work), and, to complete, > textbrowsers. But the Firefox and IExlporer figures probably are some > magnitudes higher. (I'm not familiar with Chrome, Opera, Safari etc but i > guess they also have secure settings and plugins.) > > I do not mind if you sent a 503 or 404 or whatever. You will work that out > somehow and if it means search engines have to catch up some days then why > not, is that actually such a catastrophe ? > But i really don't know. > > But the point was, this is not about how to HAVE still access to users, but > about how to really NOT have access. Wasn't this the point of the protest, to > start with ? >
So, this will be my last comment on this. In the time frame we had to implement this, it wasn't possible to do a 100% blackout that would have been completely impenetrable. There were a number of suggestions that could have blacked everything out completely, but very, very likely would have broken things in a way that would have lasted more than the blackout period. We have to consider: 1. Search engines 2. Our caches 3. Upstream caches 4. API users 5. Screen scrapers 6. Things we didn't have time to consider <-- this is a big one The goal was to inform as many people as possible about the effects of the bills, and I think we were effective at doing so. - Ryan _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
