W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Forcing to another page to load

From: Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 13:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Rob Lines <c0nner@sosbbs.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, Robots List <robots@mail.mccmedia.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970706113116.8883E-100000@andrew.triumf.ca>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3666
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:

> At 9:25p -0400 07/05/97, Rob Lines wrote:
> > i was wondering how you can force the browser to another page...
> > ie. i move my web page to another site, and i wand to send tem from
>  > my old page to the new one...
> <META HTTP-EQUIV=Refresh CONTENT="4;http://www.domain.com/page.html">

Works fine for people.

Theory says you should send a 301 "Moved Permanently" HTTP status code
which ought to update search engines, or otherwise automated agents
will continue to think your old page is OK.

However, if you issue a 301 status with a text page, most browsers
will jump immediately to the new location without so much as a flicker.

(I cc.d this to robots & HTTP because it also relates to those fields,
and I'd like to know myself ...)

Anyone else care to comment on the best way to move a Web page

1. HTTP-EQUIV=Refresh   for a few weeks, then 404  (delete page),
  and re-submit to the search engines manually.
2. 301 "moved permanently" until the end of time
2a. 301 "moved permanently" for a while, then 404

Various questions: 
Do existing robots follow a "refresh" ? (They would follow a regular link,
in any case) (mine does)

Do existing robots update a URL on encountering a 301 status ? (mine is
supposed to, but that bit's not been extensively checked ...)

Does anyone run a site checker/updater (like the original MOMspider) which
uses 301 (or 302) to fix links ?

Is there a need for some convention on a bit of HTML to satisfy both
agents and people that a page has permanently moved ?

I tried sending status 302 with a Refresh header; it works with Netscape
3.0 but not perhaps older browsers, and is probably illegal anyway ...
(though I seem to remember that 300 causes some problems for old
browsers, as used in one (all?) of the TCN versions)


Andrew Daviel
Vancouver Webpages; TRIUMF 
Received on Sunday, 6 July 1997 13:25:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC