Subject:
|
Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 1999 16:26:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@geocities.comAVOIDSPAM
|
Viewed:
|
1979 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> 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
Cool. I concur.
> 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?
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
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
"I prefer the term para-mental. It keeps me out of the loony bin."
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Working sketch of FAQ item data format
|
| (...) Nope (...) 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 (26 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
