W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2003

RE: http-equiv="refresh" redirects ignored in markup validator

From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:09:08 +0100 (BST)
To: Lars Holst <lholst@robotics.lu.se>
cc: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, "" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.50.0307281603370.24180-100000@argos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>

Agree with Lars.

Would really like to know why that W3C page links to an apache
url-rewriting guide filled with regexp examples, rather than
information on the Apache Redirect (older RedirectPermanent and
RedirectTemporary) directives in .htaccess files, which are what's
really needed here.


(Of course, how to specify generation of 301/302 http codes depends on
your choice of webserver/environment/braindead scripting environment,
so you can't blame the W3C for not giving information in detail.)


On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Lars Holst wrote:

> Hello Olivier,
> Thanks for the quick feedback.
> In my case, the redirect acts on the top level URI, and does not break the
> back button. Try for yourself. So that argument doesn't hold.
> But let's suppose it did:
> >Please read <http://www.w3.org/2001/06tips/reback>: <meta
> >http-equiv="Refresh"> is not a recommended (i.e, it's ugly) way to do a
> >redirect. The Markup validator does supports the recommended HTTP-based
> >redirects.
> I read the page. I'm sorry, but it's got to be one of the worst links I have
> followed for a long time.
> "Use the power of HTTP! There's a feature in HTTP that allows you to
> redirect, in a clean and transparent way, viewers of a page to another page.
> It's not even complicated."
> There's a feature? Really? If it's not complicated, why not tell me straight
> away? As it is, I am given a set of links, none of which help me find out
> what I should do. This is the very essence of bad practice, if anything. I
> wonder who will benefit from such a "pointer"? Clearly not amateur web
> developers like myself, or anyone who values their time.
> >Not sure about this either. If someone tries to validate a file, the
> >validator should probably validate this file, not whatever it refreshes
> >to after n seconds (I know, the case n=0 is a limit case but better
> >forget this practice anyway).
> Why? The redirect is there for a reason, right? I really don't see why it
> shouldn't follow it.
> I do appreciate your pointer, but I'd be even more grateful for a link to a
> page that actually explains the HTTP-based feature that I should use.
> Thanks,
> Lars

Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 11:09:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:30:39 UTC