On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 15:31, olivier Thereaux wrote: > This is a particular (and rare) instance of a broken server "lying" in > its HTTP status codes, and I don't really think it contradicts the > statement that 302->200 is *usually* not a problem/error. The link > checker could, indeed, add a note that there is "usually nothing to > do... and you can double check by hand if you want to be really sure", > but my understanding is that it is more or less implied with "usually". > > What do others think? Seconded.Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 19:17:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:15 GMT