Subject:
|
Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:22:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
178 times
|
| |
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:G7uDtL.IHw@lugnet.com...
> 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.
Any way to differenitate between the two?
> > 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 as well). Its a pain to have to click something
> > extra when you don't put one character in a URL.
>
> I agree completely, and in the case of hand-typed URLs (where HTTP_REFERER
> comes in undefined) it should auto-forward to the URL that it thinks you
> really meant.
Hmm...could it?
Also, if you're trying to eliminate links to slashless directories, why not put
a notice on the error page (if there isn't already) politely asking the visitor
to remind the person who owns the site with the link to change it?
> > I guess I should ask - is there a legitimate technical reason you did this,
> > or is it a way to 'teach' people to key in a URL 'correctly?' I've honestly
> > never seen an error page show up on any other server when I forgot to
> > include a slash - so, why LUGNET?
>
> Because the URL
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/publish/ftx/guide/images
>
> actually refers to a page named 'images' in the /publish/ftx/guide/ directory.
Page...which, there is no page, right? And if that is a page, why doesn't it
have an extension?
> Similarly, the URL
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/castle
>
> actually refers to a page named 'castle' in the root directory. Only there's
> no page named 'castle' and hence the error message.
If its hand typed, it should auto-forward, so as not to be a PITA.
> Thus, you could have a directory
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~140/foo/
>
> and at the same time a [file]
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~140/foo
>
> because the page names are magically file-extensionless. (I wouldn't
> recommend having both unless you're having one forward to the other for
> legacy reasons, but it's possible indeed.)
Its possible, but will it ever happen? Is it possible with FTX? If its 1)
improbable or 2) impossible with FTX, why make the safeguard? And, why wouldn't
the file have an extension? That's just asking for confusion the way I see it.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
