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
