Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 1 Jul 2024, at 13:09, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> However, I think David J had another good argument:
>> "If we are making wikipedia our authority we might as well use their
>> standard for naming."
> It's a moving target, but so is most if not all links.
I see nothi
> On 1 Jul 2024, at 13:09, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024, at 09:35, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Avoding redirects is generally a good thing, not everyone is on lightning
>> fast
>> internet. Wikipedia is however not doing any 30X redirects so it's not
>> really
>> an issue for t
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024, at 09:35, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Avoding redirects is generally a good thing, not everyone is on lightning fast
> internet. Wikipedia is however not doing any 30X redirects so it's not really
> an issue for those links, it's all 200 requests.
Yes, I noticed that too when
> On 1 Jul 2024, at 08:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:27:45AM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> During work in the separate thread [1], I discovered more cases
>> where the link in docs wasn't the canonical link [2].
>>
>> [1]
>> https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyex9pj9g0zhjew
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:27:45AM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> During work in the separate thread [1], I discovered more cases
> where the link in docs wasn't the canonical link [2].
>
> [1]
> https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyex9pj9g0zhjewsmsbnquygh+fycw-66ezjfvg4ko...@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://e
Hello hackers,
During work in the separate thread [1], I discovered more cases
where the link in docs wasn't the canonical link [2].
[1]
https://postgr.es/m/cakfquwyex9pj9g0zhjewsmsbnquygh+fycw-66ezjfvg4ko...@mail.gmail.com
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_link_element
The. below scr
