 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7KAE9.MFt@lugnet.com... (...) I didn't (and don't) dispute your rights. (...) a (...) his (...) I don't accept that at all. Anyone who wants to express their opinion in a public forum (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I'm not dictating. Not now, not ever. That (not dictating) is a longstanding and consistent position I've held, you can check back as far as you like... back to the very start of LUGNet(tm), and farther. Note that I distinguish between things (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7LH2p.It4@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) but (...) Then perhaps you should have worded it "Todd should think about making the line between ....". It just sounded to me like you were (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I can see how you might take it that way... but I do have a rather brash style, long term readers know when I'm being actually emphatic. :-) However communication wasn't did, and the fault lies not with the reader. (...) I don't think we're (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Not much, but I've read enough about ASP to determine that it doesn't suit my needs (didn't in 1997-98 and still doesn't now). Always curious, however, I'll still flip through books in the bookstore every few months -- things on CFML, ASP, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I challenge you to defend that with examples. Good luck. (...) Is there something you're really trying to say? --Todd (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Here you go: Click on this: (URL) the lack of trailing slash in the original as typed) QED (...) Yes. I was clarifying that your choice of webserver, development tools etc., per se, has no user impact, and is not evidence of any anti-MS bias. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I'd suggest you continue to ignore it, since if you don't, it leads to statements like this one (...) not exactly unemotional... by the way, were you commenting in an official capacity? (...) Fortunately that's not what I said. (...) And why (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Well, I'm not sure how you're measuring 'Lugnet' here-- either as the group using it, the admins personally, or the 'Lugnet-as-a-company's view on the issue. Certainly to say such of the users is rather laughable, at best. To say so of the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) (URL)(note the lack of trailing slash in the original as typed) (...) ++Lar (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7Mo2I.EqK@lugnet.com... (...) What do you use for the database(s)? [snip] (...) bias. (...) too. (...) I think I was probably refering more to your "anti-MS" posts than your technology (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7MqB3.L0y@lugnet.com... (...) Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand your point here Larry. Surely the page displayed is not the result of a technology decision? I would guess it's more of a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Perl. (...) Those have actually been toned down quite a bit compared to 2 years ago. :-) --Todd (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Larry, my dear old man, please have your poor head examined. What you've cited above doesn't have anything to do with the choice of server technologies, much less with the choice or non-choice of MS. That page comes up because I specifically (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) No difference there except semantically, at least not the way I was using technology in this context, rather broadly. MS got this part of the standard wrong in that the MS web browser saves bookmarks to pages without the trailing slash, and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) My head's just fine, thanks... no bigger than normal. (...) (URL) that I have a different interpretation. (...) who use older versions of MS browsers OR (...) That'd be nice. ++Lar (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I think Suzanne hates MS more than I do. She's had only bad user-experiences with Windows, whereas I've have mostly good user-experiences in Windows. On the other hand, I've also had many years of bad programming experiences in Windows NT (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I didn't try hard enough not to be non-unemotional. Let me try again... (...) Obviously I disagree with that opinion. In fact, I don't even know if you seriously believe it yourself. I think what you perceive as an anti-MS "bias" is actually (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) You're so far off track, it's not even funny. --Todd (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Well, guess what. You suspect wrong. By the time my handler realizes that the page doesn't exist, it has already output the HTTP header. Thus, it can't easily go back and redirect the page at that point with a 'Location:' header. I'll figure (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
This is a small subtopic and it is to be hoped that this will be my last post on it. (...) Parser overload, too many negations! :-) (I parsed it by hand but it did throw an exception) (...) I think I believe it. I sincerely believe I've provided one (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Not quite true... (...) NES/iWS do this automagically. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (URL) A division of AOL Time Warner | Please do not associate my personal views with (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Gee, Larry, what's you're problem. Todd's statement parsed perfectly for me... But then I have the advantage of having grown up breathing double negativism and worse. Todd is clearly adapting well to life in Massachusetts... (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) ah ha, but it is funny. This whole thing is, especially to some neophyte philistine (sp?) like me. Sillyness like this is the reason Roger Waters left Pink Floyd. Think of all of lego you people could've been building instead of squabling like (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) You mean there are webservers that don't automatically forward trailing- slashless URLs to trailing-slashed URLs by default, and have a configurable error page? (...) I thought basically all webservers did that automatically. That's why I had (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) But why? Is there a load on the server which makes trailing slashless URLs incredibly inefficient? I find that what is in place to stop those slashless URLs from being forwarded is quite a significant irritation (and others have told me that (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) But as Larry has argued before, whether YOU think you are in the right or not, you are going counterintuitive to the vast majority of the Internet. There ARE times where you should just get off the high horse and do something for the (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I wouldn't say "incredibly inefficient," but definitely wasteful and inefficient. It's no big deal for occasional hand-typed URLs, but it's extremely annoying for links. (...) I agree completely, and in the case of hand-typed URLs (where (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) ^^^...^^^ file (...) Durrrr, that should say, "and at the same time a *file*"... --Todd (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I don't think it's about being "right" or "wrong." The reason that it's "counterintuitive" relative to the rest of the Internet is that 99.999999% of websites don't let you create non-index webpages that don't use filename extensions. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Sorry, your choices are the counterintuitive ones. 1) I don't know what universe you live in, but in MINE, the bulk of sites on the web translate (URL) to (URL) Member pages are the obvious problem here - you designed them wrong from the start, and (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) counterintuitive relative to most sites is precisely because of the above. (...) "Wrong"? LOL. (...) It's just a different way of naming pages. --Todd (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7uDtL.IHw@lugnet.com... (...) Any way to differenitate between the two? (...) Hmm...could it? Also, if you're trying to eliminate links to slashless directories, why not put a notice on the (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) With very high accuracy, yes. (...) Yes. (...) No, there *is* a page called 'images' there! You can click that URL above and go there. (...) Because that's not the URL syntax for FTX pages. Extensions aren't used -- they're useless baggage. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7uH6z.4K8@lugnet.com... (...) Cool. (...) Oh, ok, I read the statement wrong then. Silly question - but I feel like asking it anyways :) Why is it a page called images versus a directory (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) If it were a directory, it would have a traliing slash and then it would also be a shorthand URL for the index page of that directory. I think you're thinking about it too hard. If a URL has a trailing slash, it's a directory (or the index (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Heh :) (...) Ok. (...) Alright, I get it. -Tim (23 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) Different, yes... you could even say "unconventional", which is what Tom is saying. Unconventional is not alway "wrong". But when you break a convention you should have a good reason to do so. Users not needing to remember to type .ftx on the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) A different way of naming pages that seems wrong to EVERY SINGLE person I've talked to. Doesn't that tell you something? If the UI is counterintuitive, change the UI if possible, don't try to change the users. In this case, changing the UI is (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) Except one. (Todd). Grin... Of course, you work for Netscape. What do *you* know about how the web is supposed to work? I mean, it's not like your company did anything to popularise browsers, turn standards into practice, or make one of the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: URLs without trailing slashes
|
|
(...) Heh. Well, it tells me several things! It tells me that the people you've talked to are closed-minded, impatient, unimaginative, feeble, unalert individuals; that they are perpetually either unable or unwilling to understand and appreciate (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
I think we've been through this before. The reason that /foo/bar and /foo/bar/ are almost always synonymous is because most content (even dynamic) is filesystem based. That means you can have either the file "bar" or directory "bar" in directory (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes: Of course that should be: fixURL(char *buf) { int urlsize; urlsize=strlen(buf); if ((buf[urlsize]-1] != '/') && (urlsize < BUFSIZE-1)) { buf[urlsize]='/'; buf[urlsize+1]=0; } (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Might wanna throw in a comment at the top stating that behavior is undefined (and may even result in a segmentation fault) if fixURL(buf) is called when *buf == "\0". As written above, code assumes that strlen(buf) >= 1. --Todd (23 years ago, 29-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) d'Oh. Shame on me. I mean when *buf == '\0'. :-) --Todd (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
