-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It is just a (imho short) question of time Google (and other search
> > engines) will renew their index and rebuild the karma for the new URIs.
>
> I am not really sure about this.
>
> I believe the "
> It is just a (imho short) question of time Google
(and other search
> engines) will renew their index and rebuild the
karma for the new URIs.
I am not really sure about this.
I believe the "karma" of Google is the results
of popular pages linking
to certain URLs, thus assing the popularity of
* "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... Another option would also be, add a checkbox for a doc cookie,
> 'Always choose this version', which would bypass this page and
> always redirect that browser to the right section.
Uh -1.
That would be much confusing.
Vary: Cookie?
Proxi
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:09:09PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What about an auto-script for /docs/* that says (lets use the
> example of /docs/mod/directives.html)
>
> The httpd docs project team has split the information for your
> convenience between the following versions, please indi
On 25.09.2004, at 11:07, Astrid Keßler wrote:
I'd like to see more of a concrete statement of what problem we are
trying
to solve. If it is just a question of ugly urls, I don't think it is
worth solving.
Ough. Well, I'll try to make it more clear:
...
We better offer an overview page at /docs an
> I'd like to see more of a concrete statement of what problem we are trying
> to solve. If it is just a question of ugly urls, I don't think it is
> worth solving.
Ough. Well, I'll try to make it more clear:
Nothing is ugly. /docs is - not in the past, but now and in future -
simply wrong. Peop
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Rich Bowen wrote:
The problem is that we are stating that people should use Apache 2.0,
but our website has the 1.3 docs as the default documentation on the
website when you go to /docs
OK. But the 1.3 docs are not favoured in any way except by not having the
version number i
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Astrid Keßler wrote:
> >> But note this could have adverse effects for things like google searches.
> >> Google would probably see the redirect and wipe out all the good karma we
> >> get from links to those pages.
> >
> > It is ju
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Astrid Keßler wrote:
But note this could have adverse effects for things like google searches.
Google would probably see the redirect and wipe out all the good karma we
get from links to those pages.
It is just a (imho short) question of time Google (and other search
engines) w
Joshua wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Astrid Keßler wrote:
>>> What primarily bugs me is two things:
>>> 1) That /docs/ is the 1.3 documentation, while we're trying to present a
>>> message that 2.0 is the Right Thing To Use.
>>
>>> If the canonical documentation URL "/docs/" points to 1.3, then
>
What about an auto-script for /docs/* that says (lets use the
example of /docs/mod/directives.html)
The httpd docs project team has split the information for your
convenience between the following versions, please indicate
which version you are using;
Apache httpd 1.3 /docs-1.3/mod/directi
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 13:19 -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> But note this could have adverse effects for things like google searches.
> Google would probably see the redirect and wipe out all the good karma we
> get from links to those pages.
Google will find it again with time.
I have faith in Go
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Astrid Keßler wrote:
What primarily bugs me is two things:
1) That /docs/ is the 1.3 documentation, while we're trying to present a
message that 2.0 is the Right Thing To Use.
If the canonical documentation URL "/docs/" points to 1.3, then
*obviously* 1.3 must be the recommend
> What primarily bugs me is two things:
> 1) That /docs/ is the 1.3 documentation, while we're trying to present a
> message that 2.0 is the Right Thing To Use.
> If the canonical documentation URL "/docs/" points to 1.3, then
> *obviously* 1.3 must be the recommended version.
What about moving d
> As
we hope, maybe, some day soon, to move into the 2.2 branch, and then,
> some
day, 2.4, and so on, we're going to continue to face the challenge
> of
what the URLs for the documentation should be. Having docs-2.0,
> docs-2.2,
docs-2.4, etc, is sucky and not scalable.
I'd say it depends. The
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
> * Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > As we hope, maybe, some day soon, to move into the 2.2 branch, and then,
> > some day, 2.4, and so on, we're going to continue to face th
* Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As we hope, maybe, some day soon, to move into the 2.2 branch, and then,
> some day, 2.4, and so on, we're going to continue to face the challenge
> of what the URLs for the documentation should be. Havi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As we hope, maybe, some day soon, to move into the 2.2 branch, and then,
some day, 2.4, and so on, we're going to continue to face the challenge
of what the URLs for the documentation should be. Having docs-2.0,
docs-2.2, docs-2.4, etc, is sucky and no
18 matches
Mail list logo
