- From: Stuart Young <nakor@glasswings.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:18:33 +1000 (EST)
- To: Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Charles Peyton Taylor wrote: > I think a dummy file is *WORSE* than just deleting a file. If you > use an automatic link-checker (as I do) you will never know that > a Link is about to go away, or that the information is no longer > there, with a dummy web page. The best thing to do is have the > server redirect the file to another location. That way, the move > will get the attention of those of us who have a *lot* of links > to look after. The 'over-writing files' with a dummy is aimed only as a short term solution. The file should (as you say) be deleted and/or redirected. But the issue in question was that a particular 'ISP based' web server would only allow you to 'place' files, not delete them (or re-direct calls to said files), without actually getting on the phone and calling the ISP up and asking them to delete the files manually. As you can guess, when you get a lot of pages, this becomes a mess to deal with all the time. The idea was to over-write with the dummy files till you can call them and get them to delete them. Expecially since all the dummy files will be pretty much the same length, this makes the sys-admins job easier remembering all the files to delete. Since some HTML authors work and update their sites outside business hours, when an ISP won't answer the phone, ... well you get the idea. /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Stuart Young (aka Cefiar) - You may be human, but you're still animals! | | nakor@glasswings.com.au - IF you've done 6 impossible things, write HTML | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Received on Thursday, 5 September 1996 12:06:50 UTC