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

Re: Forcing to another page to load

From: Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 21:17:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199707070118.VAA15583@unix.asb.com>
To: Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, Robots List <robots@mail.mccmedia.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3669
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 13:21:51 -0700 (PDT),
   Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca> wrote:

> <META HTTP-EQUIV=Refresh CONTENT="4;http://www.domain.com/page.html">
> Works fine for people.

Isn't it CONTENT="4; URL=http://...." ? That seems to work fine as 

> 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.

Yes, but there are other ways to show a page is superceded and 
shouldn't be indexed.

  <meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="time; URL=newurl">
  <meta http-equiv="Expires" content="expiration date">
  <meta name="Robots" content="noindex,noarchive">
  <link rev=Supercedes href="newurl">

Notice the use of the expiration date, the link relationship and the 
robots tag. In the body there's a message about the page being moved 
with a link.

> 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.

Aren't browsers supposed to ignore status codes as part of a web 
page? (ie, <meta http-equiv="Status"...>)

Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Se habla PGP.
Received on Sunday, 6 July 1997 18:21:58 UTC

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