Hi Branden, G. Branden Robinson wrote on Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 06:53:30PM -0500:
> So while changing the name of the directory back to html_node will fix > some broken link problems, it won't fix them all, and it won't be robust > in the face of future development. I'm fairly neutral on the > "html_node" vs. "groff.html.node" naming issue, but I'm downright > _opposed_ to limiting my (or future contributors') flexibility in > updating, expanding, reducing, or otherwise mutating the node names of > the groff Texinfo manual. Those shackles are much too tight. Agreed. Of course changing the content of documentation must always be possible, including removing obsolete content. Renaming nodes may occasionally make sense, too. > A. Put the groff 1.22.4 manual back online, probably as > https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/manual/groff-1.22.4/html_node/ While that is unlikely to do much harm, i'm not sure it is needed. I don't think we encourige using old versions of groff, so it is unlikely to help normal users. It may occasionally be useful for people researching the history of groff, though not all that much because git serves that purpose better. It may occasionally contribute to confusion when search engines return deep links into old documentation to unsuspecting users. Not a big deal either way, i guess. > ...and have > https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/manual/html_node/ > symlink/redirect to it. I don't really like that idea. Many old web pages talk about groff in general rather than about specific historical versions of groff. So being pointed at the current documentation is likely more useful for most users than being pointed at documentation for some historical version. Besides, even if a site talks about a definite version of groff, that's unlikely to be specifically 1.22.4. Even if a deep link from an old website dies because the content of groff documentation changes, i don't think that is necessarly a bad thing. It may alert the user following the link that the underlying functionality of groff in the region the website talks about has likely evolved. That doesn't mean links to the top level of the manual should break, unless we are planning to abandon or rename groff as a whole. ;-) Please don't overthink all this. Keeping links stable is good when it is easily possible, but it's normal that substantially improving the content of a website implies that *some* URIs occasionally break, in particular deep links. > Okay, I am reminded why the suits hate deep linking. :-| I don't think that's the reason. The suits want visitors of their company website to see the advertisements of the day on the start page, both to drive marketing and sales and, as you pointed out, to boost their personal ego. They want visitors to use the navigation tools provided by the website itself such that marketing can effectively steer visitors to those products that generate the best profit - what the visitors were actually looking for may sometimes be considered of secondary importance at best. Many suits care less about efficient and reliable access to detailed and technical information. The general rule "if you care about the reliability of your links, don't link more deeply than you have good reasons to", on the other hand, is not limited to suits. I try to abide by that rule, too. Yours, Ingo
