On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:58:42PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 12:16:34 CEST]: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:58:07AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > > Am Freitag, den 03.10.2008, 14:43 -0600 schrieb CVS User frankie: > > > > - <dt><a > > > > href="$(DOC)/developers-reference/resources#s-incoming-system">\ > > > > + <dt><a > > > > href="$(DOC)/developers-reference/resources.html#incoming-system">\ > > > > > > Erm, pardon? Why did you change that link? It was completely valid, > > > what was the problem with that? > > > > It is now pointing to sec 4.8 (incoming system), before that it was > > pointing to the > > beginning of chapter 4 (resources) because that tag did not exist. > > Ah, right - only noticed the addition of the .html (which might work > against content negotiation, but I checked, it's done with .html.fr in > there so it's fine ...) but didn't see the change to stripp off the s- > from the anchor. > > Still wonder, do we need (or rather, want) the additional .html in > here? Is it needed? Might it influence future content negotiation > changes? Propably not, but I think it's common that we only link to the > short name without any extensions here. > Indeed it works without the html suffix. I simply did a cut&past without stripping it, my fault. Contents negotiation should work with or without the suffix anyway.
-- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
