Subject:
|
Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 May 1999 00:58:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1865 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.faq, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> [...]
> This is becoming pretty messy, and mostly for a dubious benefit. Do you
> have any qualms with doing away with 'Include'?
Nope
> 1. Bad plate to put this, in a footnote, but... I think we should split up
> separate 'Location's into separate headers instead of commafying them. It
> would become more consistent with everything else, and allow for 'Location'
> headers to be brought in from somewhere else.
Why are 'Location' headers useful again? What do they do (as in an
example) that an include mechanism (implicit or explicit or a mix-n-match
index) can't do? How terrible is life without the 'Location' header?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
| (...) Cool. I concur. (...) Um, I think it was for a possible alternative organization scheme, other than placement in a subdirectory. If we use index files instead, the Location header is not needed. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
| (...) Among other things, yes. Upper levels can benefit too, such as bringing in 'Location' headers (1). (...) No; the way I see it, the including file has priority. Fields brought in by an include would be overridden by fields already in the (...) (25 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
