Looking for Help with FAQ

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Garrett Smith, May 21, 2009.

  1. It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    for the notes:
    http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

    It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    href="/faq/#testCookie"

    After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.

    It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    this, please contact me.

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    > It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.


    So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.

    > The current url for the notes:
    > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >
    > It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.


    That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    much potential disadvantage, so not "better".

    > The proposed path
    > would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.


    So you intend doubling up (at least one page of) the notes? Because
    currently the archives, many third party web pages and numerous books,
    reference notes pages using the current URLs, so making the pages
    unavailable from their current URLs will not be doing anyone any
    favours.

    > URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths.


    They did use relative paths.

    > This makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    > href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed
    > to: href="/faq/#testCookie"


    Not necessarily. The FAQ should never have been changed in a way that
    made the fragment identifier #FAQ4_4 ineffective as the archives are
    full of references to the FAQ that use that style of fragment
    identifier that should never have been broken by modifications to the
    FAQ (otherwise the archives are diminished as a resource). After all,
    even if there is no longer a section 4.4 there is no reason why the
    answer it once contained could not be tagged with the fragment
    identifier "FAQ4_4".

    If modifications to the FAQ didn't invalidate the references to the
    FAQ in the archives they would not invalidate the URLs in the notes.

    > After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new
    > index page.
    >
    > It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching
    > in on this, please contact me.


    The notes pages use very simple and uniform mark-up. Mechanically
    transforming the URLs would be trivial.

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, May 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. [posted & mailed]

    Garrett Smith wrote:
    > It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    > for the notes:
    > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >
    > It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    > would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.
    >
    > URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    > makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    > href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    > href="/faq/#testCookie"


    Full ACK.

    > After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.


    The beauty of it is that the files don't really need to be fixed, given
    proper Web server configuration.

    > It is a lot of tedious work.


    I don't think so.

    > If anyone is interested in pitching in on this, please contact me.


    I think I know my way around Regular Expressions, Apache/2.x, and
    mod_rewrite (I use them both professionally and privately on a daily basis),
    so I volunteer.


    Regards,

    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, May 21, 2009
    #3
  4. Richard Cornford wrote:
    > On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    >> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.

    >
    > So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.


    IBTD!

    <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>
    <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/uri-choose>

    Short but talking URLs are a requirement for good search engine ranking and
    even for accessibility nowadays.

    >> The current url for the notes:
    >> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>
    >> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.

    >
    > That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    > would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    > much potential disadvantage, so not "better".


    You don't think that referring to

    http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/closures#IE-memory-leak
    (or http://cljs.example/faq/notes/closures#IE-memory-leak)

    is easier to do and easier legible than referring to

    http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html#clMem

    ? Think again.

    >> The proposed path
    >> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    >
    > So you intend doubling up (at least one page of) the notes?


    Hopefully not, as there is no need for that in order to achieve the above.

    >> This makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    >> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed
    >> to: href="/faq/#testCookie"

    >
    > Not necessarily. The FAQ should never have been changed in a way that
    > made the fragment identifier #FAQ4_4 ineffective as the archives are
    > full of references to the FAQ that use that style of fragment
    > identifier that should never have been broken by modifications to the
    > FAQ (otherwise the archives are diminished as a resource). After all,
    > even if there is no longer a section 4.4 there is no reason why the
    > answer it once contained could not be tagged with the fragment
    > identifier "FAQ4_4".


    Yes, AFAIK fragment identifiers are not sent to the server and so cannot be
    URL-rewritten. However, one can do

    <h3><a name="testCookie">Setting</a> <a name="FAQ4_4">Cookies</a></h3>

    because

    <a name="foo"></a>

    or

    <a name="foo"> </a>

    might not be regarded an anchor, and `a' elements must not nest. Keeping
    track of the changes is what this makes difficult, though.

    BTW, I do not think that the current

    <h3 id="formatDate">
    <a class="empty" name="FAQ4_1"> </a>
    4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?
    </h3>

    is a good idea. Should be at least

    <h3 id="formatDate">
    <a name="FAQ4_1">4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?</a>
    </h3>

    Also note that not all user agents support IDs as anchors.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, May 21, 2009
    #4
  5. In comp.lang.javascript message <gv2u6d$8t0$-
    september.org>, Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:25, Garrett Smith
    <> posted:
    >It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    >for the notes:
    >http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >
    >It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed
    >path would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.



    Not important. You have better things to do. There is no need to type
    the Notes URL at all; users should bookmark it and the FAQ.

    Anyway, it is only necessary to put javascript faq notes in a
    browser address bar. I get 16e6 hits, with the right one first. One
    early hit is a CLJ wiki, at <http://www.cljwiki.org/>.

    Especially not important when you add the Notes Index to the FAQ, as
    discussed before.


    However, add to the TOC/Intro page anything that might aid searches.
    For example, one of my pages includes "The word Millennium is not spelt
    Millenium, Milenium, or Milennium (but that reference may help bad
    spellers using search engines!)."

    Search terms should include clj, c.l.j, ecmascript, news, newsgroup,
    Usenet.


    Equally, the Notes should have a copyright statement in the Intro, and a
    copyright indication on the other pages.

    >It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    >this, please contact me.


    Don't let Lahn anywhere near it.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
    Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
     
    Dr J R Stockton, May 21, 2009
    #5
  6. Richard Cornford wrote:
    > On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    >> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.

    >
    > So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.
    >
    >> The current url for the notes:
    >> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>
    >> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.

    >
    > That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    > would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    > much potential disadvantage, so not "better".
    >


    The benefit is that it is shorter and more memorable.

    >> The proposed path
    >> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    >
    > So you intend doubling up (at least one page of) the notes? Because
    > currently the archives, many third party web pages and numerous books,
    > reference notes pages using the current URLs, so making the pages
    > unavailable from their current URLs will not be doing anyone any
    > favours.


    Yes, double it up then create a redirect or a rewrite.

    >
    >> URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths.

    >
    > They did use relative paths.
    >


    The faq notes I don't have permissions on. I don't know if they were
    ever changed or not, but they do link to FAQ page on jibbering.com,
    using a full url (see just below).

    >> This makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    >> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed
    >> to: href="/faq/#testCookie"

    >
    > Not necessarily. The FAQ should never have been changed in a way that
    > made the fragment identifier #FAQ4_4 ineffective as the archives are
    > full of references to the FAQ that use that style of fragment
    > identifier that should never have been broken by modifications to the
    > FAQ (otherwise the archives are diminished as a resource). After all,
    > even if there is no longer a section 4.4 there is no reason why the
    > answer it once contained could not be tagged with the fragment
    > identifier "FAQ4_4".
    >


    Changing the FAQ to give more semantic fragment identifiers made those
    links more meaningful to humans and bots.

    Changing to use relative paths to link to the FAQ makes the FAQ portable
    to another server, which has been the subject of a few recent threads.
    It would also make it easy to find the faq_notes index page from the
    cookies page.

    The current notes index:
    http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/

    That page, while useful, is not quite what one might expect to find from
    the "notes" page, and does not link back to the FAQ.

    Instead, I think it would be more intuitive to have the default page as
    what is now faq_notes.html, and should be found at /faq/notes/ and that
    all pages should have a breadcrumb for faq / notes (linking to both the
    faq and to the notees).

    Ineffectualizing fragment identifier in the links was a mistake that has
    been rectified. http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4 links to the faq
    section, which links back to the cookies page.

    > If modifications to the FAQ didn't invalidate the references to the
    > FAQ in the archives they would not invalidate the URLs in the notes.
    >
    >> After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new
    >> index page.
    >>
    >> It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching
    >> in on this, please contact me.

    >
    > The notes pages use very simple and uniform mark-up. Mechanically
    > transforming the URLs would be trivial.


    The pages need to be downloaded.

    Find/replace in path: "notes"
    Find: http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ([^'"]+)
    Replace: ../\1

    First steps could be to do that and test it.

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 21, 2009
    #6
  7. Garrett Smith

    David Mark Guest

    On May 21, 3:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    > for the notes:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >
    > It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    > would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.
    >
    > URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    > makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    > href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    > href="/faq/#testCookie"
    >
    > After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.
    >
    > It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    > this, please contact me.
    >


    As I've mentioned before, the markup and style need to be torn down
    and rewritten from scratch. At the very least, major surgery is
    needed.

    I'd leave the URI's alone. It doesn't really matter in the larger
    scheme of things. Who memorizes such URI's? Well, other than the
    spiders and bookmarks, etc. Sure, you could use redirects to make the
    move seamless, but it all sounds like a waste of time to me.
     
    David Mark, May 22, 2009
    #7
  8. Dr J R Stockton wrote:
    > In comp.lang.javascript message <gv2u6d$8t0$-
    > september.org>, Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:25, Garrett Smith
    > <> posted:
    >> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    >> for the notes:
    >> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>
    >> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed
    >> path would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    >
    >
    > Not important. You have better things to do. There is no need to type
    > the Notes URL at all; users should bookmark it and the FAQ.
    >


    The faq and notes should be portable to another server. This is more
    easily facilitated by using relative paths.

    The contributions page needs fixing. There is a mistake in the closures
    article that needs fixing.

    > Anyway, it is only necessary to put javascript faq notes in a
    > browser address bar. I get 16e6 hits, with the right one first. One
    > early hit is a CLJ wiki, at <http://www.cljwiki.org/>.
    >
    > Especially not important when you add the Notes Index to the FAQ, as
    > discussed before.
    >


    The notes index page is linked from the faq.

    "For additional explanation and detail relating to some aspects of the
    FAQ, please see the FAQ Notes. "

    I do not agree that this index page should be included on the FAQ. This
    would make the TOC excessively long.

    Instead, I believe the notes should instead be linked at the top, as it
    is, and throughout, where relevant (as it is).

    >
    > Don't let Lahn anywhere near it.
    >


    I do not plan to provide access to Jim's server to anyone; that is up to
    Jim to decide.

    All personal feelings aside, I do not have a good reason not to accept
    assistance from anyone. I have not gotten to respond to those comments
    of the suggestion to use mod_rewrite, but I will.

    All right enough, I am out of here now. Time to go appreciate the great
    weather.

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 22, 2009
    #8
  9. David Mark wrote:
    > On May 21, 3:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    >> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    >> for the notes:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>
    >> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    >> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.
    >>
    >> URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    >> makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    >> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    >> href="/faq/#testCookie"
    >>
    >> After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.
    >>
    >> It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    >> this, please contact me.
    >>

    >
    > As I've mentioned before, the markup and style need to be torn down
    > and rewritten from scratch. At the very least, major surgery is
    > needed.
    >


    All right.

    > I'd leave the URI's alone. It doesn't really matter in the larger
    > scheme of things. Who memorizes such URI's? Well, other than the
    > spiders and bookmarks, etc. Sure, you could use redirects to make the
    > move seamless, but it all sounds like a waste of time to me.


    I propose we start with a new URI path:
    /faq/notes/

    faq/notes/closures.html seems easy to remember for me. It is shorter. It
    is more along the w3c guidelines that Thomas linked to.

    The old URIs can be made to still work. A URL rewrite to the new URI(s)
    (for old references to that URI) would work. That way, anyone typing in
    the "old" (current) URI would get the URIs that have undergone whatever
    surgery has been decided upon.

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 22, 2009
    #9
  10. On May 21, 2:21 am, Richard Cornford <>
    wrote:
    > On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    >
    > > It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.

    >
    > So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.
    >
    > > The current url for the notes:
    > >http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

    >
    > > It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.

    >
    > That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    > would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    > much potential disadvantage, so not "better".


    I agree with Richard.

    The URL is not a problem, has been well logged in search engines,
    written on paper and in bookmarks. Better to leave it alone.

    Peter
     
    Peter Michaux, May 22, 2009
    #10
  11. Garrett Smith

    David Mark Guest

    On May 22, 1:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    > > On May 21, 3:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > >> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    > >> for the notes:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

    >
    > >> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    > >> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    >
    > >> URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    > >> makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    > >> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    > >> href="/faq/#testCookie"

    >
    > >> After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.

    >
    > >> It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    > >> this, please contact me.

    >
    > > As I've mentioned before, the markup and style need to be torn down
    > > and rewritten from scratch.  At the very least, major surgery is
    > > needed.

    >
    > All right.
    >
    > > I'd leave the URI's alone.  It doesn't really matter in the larger
    > > scheme of things.  Who memorizes such URI's?  Well, other than the
    > > spiders and bookmarks, etc.  Sure, you could use redirects to make the
    > > move seamless, but it all sounds like a waste of time to me.

    >
    > I propose we start with a new URI path:
    > /faq/notes/


    Why?

    >
    > faq/notes/closures.html seems easy to remember for me. It is shorter. It
    > is more along the w3c guidelines that Thomas linked to.


    Shorter than what? And who needs to remember these things?

    >
    > The old URIs can be made to still work. A URL rewrite to the new URI(s)


    Yes.

    > (for old references to that URI) would work. That way, anyone typing in
    > the "old" (current) URI would get the URIs that have undergone whatever
    > surgery has been decided upon.


    I say skip the voluntary surgery. The markup, style (and content of
    course) are where the energy should be directed.
     
    David Mark, May 22, 2009
    #11
  12. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > Richard Cornford wrote:
    >> On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    >>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.

    >> So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.

    >
    > IBTD!
    >
    > <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>
    > <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/uri-choose>
    >
    > Short but talking URLs are a requirement for good search engine ranking and
    > even for accessibility nowadays.
    >
    >>> The current url for the notes:
    >>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>>
    >>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.

    >> That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    >> would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    >> much potential disadvantage, so not "better".

    >
    > You don't think that referring to
    >
    > http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/closures#IE-memory-leak
    > (or http://cljs.example/faq/notes/closures#IE-memory-leak)
    >
    > is easier to do and easier legible than referring to
    >
    > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html#clMem
    >
    > ? Think again.
    >
    >>> The proposed path
    >>> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    >> So you intend doubling up (at least one page of) the notes?

    >
    > Hopefully not, as there is no need for that in order to achieve the above.
    >
    >>> This makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    >>> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed
    >>> to: href="/faq/#testCookie"

    >> Not necessarily. The FAQ should never have been changed in a way that
    >> made the fragment identifier #FAQ4_4 ineffective as the archives are
    >> full of references to the FAQ that use that style of fragment
    >> identifier that should never have been broken by modifications to the
    >> FAQ (otherwise the archives are diminished as a resource). After all,
    >> even if there is no longer a section 4.4 there is no reason why the
    >> answer it once contained could not be tagged with the fragment
    >> identifier "FAQ4_4".

    >
    > Yes, AFAIK fragment identifiers are not sent to the server and so cannot be
    > URL-rewritten. However, one can do
    >
    > <h3><a name="testCookie">Setting</a> <a name="FAQ4_4">Cookies</a></h3>
    >
    > because
    >
    > <a name="foo"></a>
    >
    > or
    >
    > <a name="foo"> </a>
    >
    > might not be regarded an anchor, and `a' elements must not nest. Keeping
    > track of the changes is what this makes difficult, though.
    >
    > BTW, I do not think that the current
    >
    > <h3 id="formatDate">
    > <a class="empty" name="FAQ4_1"> </a>
    > 4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?
    > </h3>
    >
    > is a good idea. Should be at least
    >
    > <h3 id="formatDate">
    > <a name="FAQ4_1">4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?</a>
    > </h3>
    >


    That is not what the markup looks like. This is the real markup:

    <h3 id='formatDate'><a class='empty' name='formatDate'>&nbsp;</a>4.1
    How do I format a date with javascript?</h3><a class='empty'
    name='FAQ4_30'>&nbsp;</a>

    There are old IDs and new IDs.

    This part:-

    <h3 id='formatDate'><a class='empty' name='formatDate'>&nbsp;</a>4.1
    How do I format a date with javascript?</h3>

    - is for newer links to something like "#formatDate", and this part:

    <a class='empty' name='FAQ4_1'>&nbsp;</a>

    - is a named anchor for an old ID.

    I think there was a reason I moved the second link outside of the
    heading. It may have affected the display in some way. I can't remember.
    I can try moving it back inside the heading.

    > Also note that not all user agents support IDs as anchors.
    >


    The cost of id and not using name="example" attribute for anchors is
    that links to "#example" won't be recognized NS4 and possibly others (I
    am unaware, but probably exist) won't work.

    The benefit is that there is not an extra anchor.

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 22, 2009
    #12
  13. Garrett Smith

    David Mark Guest

    On May 22, 1:41 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > > Richard Cornford wrote:
    > >> On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    > >>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.
    > >> So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.

    >
    > > IBTD!

    >
    > > <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>
    > > <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/uri-choose>

    >
    > > Short but talking URLs are a requirement for good search engine rankingand
    > > even for accessibility nowadays.

    >
    > >>> The current url for the notes:
    > >>>http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html

    >
    > >>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.
    > >> That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    > >> would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    > >> much potential disadvantage, so not "better".

    >
    > > You don't think that referring to

    >
    > >  http://jibbering.com/faq/notes/closures#IE-memory-leak
    > >   (orhttp://cljs.example/faq/notes/closures#IE-memory-leak)

    >
    > > is easier to do and easier legible than referring to

    >
    > >  http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/closures.html#clMem

    >
    > > ?  Think again.

    >
    > >>> The proposed path
    > >>> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.
    > >> So you intend doubling up (at least one page of) the notes?

    >
    > > Hopefully not, as there is no need for that in order to achieve the above.

    >
    > >>> This makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    > >>> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed
    > >>> to: href="/faq/#testCookie"
    > >> Not necessarily. The FAQ should never have been changed in a way that
    > >> made the fragment identifier #FAQ4_4 ineffective as the archives are
    > >> full of references to the FAQ that use that style of fragment
    > >> identifier that should never have been broken by modifications to the
    > >> FAQ (otherwise the archives are diminished as a resource). After all,
    > >> even if there is no longer a section 4.4 there is no reason why the
    > >> answer it once contained could not be tagged with the fragment
    > >> identifier "FAQ4_4".

    >
    > > Yes, AFAIK fragment identifiers are not sent to the server and so cannot be
    > > URL-rewritten.  However, one can do

    >
    > >   <h3><a name="testCookie">Setting</a> <a name="FAQ4_4">Cookies</a></h3>

    >
    > > because

    >
    > >   <a name="foo"></a>

    >
    > > or

    >
    > >   <a name="foo"> </a>

    >
    > > might not be regarded an anchor, and `a' elements must not nest.  Keeping
    > > track of the changes is what this makes difficult, though.

    >
    > > BTW, I do not think that the current

    >
    > >   <h3 id="formatDate">
    > >     <a class="empty" name="FAQ4_1"> </a>
    > >     4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?
    > >   </h3>

    >
    > > is a good idea.  Should be at least

    >
    > >   <h3 id="formatDate">
    > >     <a name="FAQ4_1">4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?</a>
    > >   </h3>

    >
    > That is not what the markup looks like. This is the real markup:
    >
    > <h3 id='formatDate'><a class='empty' name='formatDate'>&nbsp;</a>4.1
    > How do I format a date with javascript?</h3><a class='empty'
    > name='FAQ4_30'>&nbsp;</a>
    >


    This is what I'm talking about. I don't know if this is the extant
    markup or a proposal, but I don't like it.
     
    David Mark, May 22, 2009
    #13
  14. David Mark wrote:
    > On May 22, 1:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    >> David Mark wrote:
    >>> On May 21, 3:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    >>>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    >>>> for the notes:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    >>>> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.
    >>>> URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    >>>> makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    >>>> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    >>>> href="/faq/#testCookie"
    >>>> After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.
    >>>> It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    >>>> this, please contact me.
    >>> As I've mentioned before, the markup and style need to be torn down
    >>> and rewritten from scratch. At the very least, major surgery is
    >>> needed.

    >> All right.
    >>
    >>> I'd leave the URI's alone. It doesn't really matter in the larger
    >>> scheme of things. Who memorizes such URI's? Well, other than the
    >>> spiders and bookmarks, etc. Sure, you could use redirects to make the
    >>> move seamless, but it all sounds like a waste of time to me.

    >> I propose we start with a new URI path:
    >> /faq/notes/

    >
    > Why?
    >
    >> faq/notes/closures.html seems easy to remember for me. It is shorter. It
    >> is more along the w3c guidelines that Thomas linked to.

    >
    > Shorter than what? And who needs to remember these things?
    >


    The guy who found a neat article by doing a web search, and tells his
    friend about it, on the bus.

    The email that was sent, but the link didn't quite make it through
    because it was a little too long and it wrapped and the (buggy) email
    program broke the URI.

    You. When someone asks what you have contributed to online, and you're
    on the train, on your mobile phone, you can say it, and (bonus) the
    probability of the other person typing in something short and seeing
    your name on the contributor list (provided you contribute something).


    >> The old URIs can be made to still work. A URL rewrite to the new URI(s)

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> (for old references to that URI) would work. That way, anyone typing in
    >> the "old" (current) URI would get the URIs that have undergone whatever
    >> surgery has been decided upon.

    >
    > I say skip the voluntary surgery. The markup, style (and content of
    > course) are where the energy should be directed.


    If there is a new uri, that can be a development URI. The current
    faq_notes will work, without any change. When ready, the new URI will be
    linked to from the FAQ.

    The notes will then be (re)publishable (publicly linked) and will be
    portable to other servers.

    To avoid a problem with search engines picking up mistakes, we can just
    refer to paths, such as "I updated the page at /faq/notes/foo.html -
    please check what I did."

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 22, 2009
    #14
  15. Garrett Smith

    David Mark Guest

    On May 22, 2:01 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    > > On May 22, 1:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > >> David Mark wrote:
    > >>> On May 21, 3:00 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > >>>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    > >>>> for the notes:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    > >>>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed path
    > >>>> would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.
    > >>>> URLs need to be current to the FAQ and should use relative paths. This
    > >>>> makes the pages more portable. For example, a link:
    > >>>> href="http://jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ4_4", should be changed to:
    > >>>> href="/faq/#testCookie"
    > >>>> After all files have been fixed, the FAQ can link to the new index page.
    > >>>> It is a lot of tedious work. If anyone is interested in pitching in on
    > >>>> this, please contact me.
    > >>> As I've mentioned before, the markup and style need to be torn down
    > >>> and rewritten from scratch.  At the very least, major surgery is
    > >>> needed.
    > >> All right.

    >
    > >>> I'd leave the URI's alone.  It doesn't really matter in the larger
    > >>> scheme of things.  Who memorizes such URI's?  Well, other than the
    > >>> spiders and bookmarks, etc.  Sure, you could use redirects to make the
    > >>> move seamless, but it all sounds like a waste of time to me.
    > >> I propose we start with a new URI path:
    > >> /faq/notes/

    >
    > > Why?

    >
    > >> faq/notes/closures.html seems easy to remember for me. It is shorter. It
    > >> is more along the w3c guidelines that Thomas linked to.

    >
    > > Shorter than what?  And who needs to remember these things?

    >
    > The guy who found a neat article by doing a web search, and tells his
    > friend about it, on the bus.


    Well, if you want to get anywhere, don't take the bus. :)

    >
    > The email that was sent, but the link didn't quite make it through
    > because it was a little too long and it wrapped and the (buggy) email
    > program broke the URI.


    Seems reaching.

    >
    > You. When someone asks what you have contributed to online, and you're
    > on the train, on your mobile phone, you can say it, and (bonus) the
    > probability of the other person typing in something short and seeing
    > your name on the contributor list (provided you contribute something).


    That's where you are wrong. My standard response is: mind your own
    contributions.

    [snip]
     
    David Mark, May 22, 2009
    #15
  16. Peter Michaux wrote:
    > On May 21, 2:21 am, Richard Cornford <>
    > wrote:
    >> On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.

    >> So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.
    >>
    >>> The current url for the notes:
    >>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.

    >> That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    >> would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    >> much potential disadvantage, so not "better".

    >
    > I agree with Richard.
    >
    > The URL is not a problem, has been well logged in search engines,
    > written on paper and in bookmarks. Better to leave it alone.
    >


    What if all the current URIs could still work? What if the markup could
    be made more semantic and search-engine friendly? What if the contents
    could be edited. What if new, shorter, more memorable URIs could be
    used? Any of this sound any good? What about that while still
    maintaining the old URI references?

    The strategy I have in mind?

    Do not remove the current notes. Do not use a shortcut URI and rewrite
    to the existing one.

    Instead, recreate the notes on a different path. Edits to the notes will
    take place in new location. The new location should not become public
    until acceptably complete.

    Finally, after the copy is accepted by approval, it will be publicly
    linked. Follwing that, a mod_rewrite or a redirect rule can be applied
    so that anyone navigating to the faq_notes uri will either get a
    redirect or get the content at the new URI.

    So what about the "edits" I mentioned? I have a few improvements in
    mind. So does D Mark.

    My ideas for improvement:
    A more useful default page, breadcrumb links (to the notes and to the
    FAQ itself, technical editing (one nagging in particular), edits to the
    contributors page, more semantic markup.

    Why not change the notes, but keep the same location?
    The notes would not be portable to another server. The benefit of
    shorter URIs would not be realized. Changes to the articles would
    require either posting draft text to the group posting an in-progress
    document at a different URI (which would be the new location).

    If posting a new draft URI, content and markup could be easily
    critiqued. Any mistakes would be made on the copy pages. These would be
    rectified in the approval process. The current live pages would not be
    edited and would remain as they are.

    What do you think?

    Garrett
     
    Garrett Smith, May 22, 2009
    #16
  17. Garrett Smith wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> Richard Cornford wrote:
    >>> [...] The FAQ should never have been changed in a way that
    >>> made the fragment identifier #FAQ4_4 ineffective as the archives are
    >>> full of references to the FAQ that use that style of fragment
    >>> identifier that should never have been broken by modifications to the
    >>> FAQ (otherwise the archives are diminished as a resource). After all,
    >>> even if there is no longer a section 4.4 there is no reason why the
    >>> answer it once contained could not be tagged with the fragment
    >>> identifier "FAQ4_4".

    >> Yes, AFAIK fragment identifiers are not sent to the server and so cannot be
    >> URL-rewritten. However, one can do
    >>
    >> <h3><a name="testCookie">Setting</a> <a name="FAQ4_4">Cookies</a></h3>
    >>
    >> because
    >>
    >> <a name="foo"></a>
    >>
    >> or
    >>
    >> <a name="foo"> </a>
    >>
    >> might not be regarded an anchor, and `a' elements must not nest. Keeping
    >> track of the changes is what this makes difficult, though.
    >>
    >> BTW, I do not think that the current
    >>
    >> <h3 id="formatDate">
    >> <a class="empty" name="FAQ4_1"> </a>
    >> 4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?
    >> </h3>
    >>
    >> is a good idea. Should be at least
    >>
    >> <h3 id="formatDate">
    >> <a name="FAQ4_1">4.1 How do I format a date with javascript?</a>
    >> </h3>

    >
    > That is not what the markup looks like.


    Well, it is what Firebug shows to date. I have no reason to believe that
    I am seeing an old version, only that Firebug displays &nbsp; as a space
    character.

    > This is the real markup:
    >
    > <h3 id='formatDate'><a class='empty' name='formatDate'>&nbsp;</a>4.1
    > How do I format a date with javascript?</h3><a class='empty'
    > name='FAQ4_30'>&nbsp;</a>
    >
    > There are old IDs and new IDs.


    No, there is a new ID and two names. Anyhow, Firefox (as per its built-in
    View Selected Source feature, and therefore, Firebug) doesn't seem to care
    about it, probably because it is wrong. Firstly, the markup is not Valid:
    when an _anchor_ has a name, there must not be another element that has it
    as ID or name. Secondly, the "empty" anchor after the `h3' element is
    ignored (as I have pointed out above).

    And, in fact, it is only your declaring HTML 4.01 Transitional that doesn't
    make the `a' element outside of the `h3' block element invalid in itself.

    > This part:-
    >
    > <h3 id='formatDate'><a class='empty' name='formatDate'>&nbsp;</a>4.1
    > How do I format a date with javascript?</h3>
    >
    > - is for newer links to something like "#formatDate", and this part:
    >
    > <a class='empty' name='FAQ4_1'>&nbsp;</a>
    >
    > - is a named anchor for an old ID.


    But you MUST NOT do this per Specification.

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2.3>

    (One would have thought that a maintainer of a FAQ written/generated
    in HTML would at least know how HTML links and anchors work ...)

    > I think there was a reason I moved the second link outside of the
    > heading. It may have affected the display in some way. I can't remember.
    > I can try moving it back inside the heading.


    You definitely SHOULD do that, but it would still be insufficient.

    >> Also note that not all user agents support IDs as anchors.

    >
    > The cost of id and not using name="example" attribute for anchors is
    > that links to "#example" won't be recognized NS4 and possibly others
    > (I am unaware, but probably exist) won't work.
    >
    > The benefit is that there is not an extra anchor.


    And now do weigh them against each other, please.

    And trim your quotes, please.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, May 22, 2009
    #17
  18. On May 22, 12:13 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > Peter Michaux wrote:
    > > On May 21, 2:21 am, Richard Cornford <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:

    >
    > >>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable.
    > >> So what? URLs are not things that are required to be memorable.

    >
    > >>> The current url for the notes:
    > >>>http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    > >>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes.
    > >> That would be a very subjective judgment of what would be better. I
    > >> would regard the change as pointless effort with no real benefit and
    > >> much potential disadvantage, so not "better".

    >
    > > I agree with Richard.

    >
    > > The URL is not a problem, has been well logged in search engines,
    > > written on paper and in bookmarks. Better to leave it alone.

    >
    > What if all the current URIs could still work?


    I still don't see the point in changing the URL. The current URL is
    not so unfriendly and changing it is more confusing that it is worth.

    > What if the markup could
    > be made more semantic and search-engine friendly?


    That is a great idea for change.


    > What if the contents
    > could be edited.


    I assumed the contents could be edited now by the FAQ editor.

    > What if new, shorter, more memorable URIs could be
    > used?


    The URLs are not a problem. They don't need to be memorable. Who is
    running around in life needing the c.l.js URLs at the tip of their
    fingertips? The pages are found through Google search, links here,
    etc.

    > Any of this sound any good?


    Yes, the bit about semantic markup.

    > What about that while still
    > maintaining the old URI references?


    The URLs are not the problem.

    > The strategy I have in mind?
    >
    > Do not remove the current notes. Do not use a shortcut URI and rewrite
    > to the existing one.
    >
    > Instead, recreate the notes on a different path. Edits to the notes will
    > take place in new location. The new location should not become public
    > until acceptably complete.
    >
    > Finally, after the copy is accepted by approval, it will be publicly
    > linked. Follwing that, a mod_rewrite or a redirect rule can be applied
    > so that anyone navigating to the faq_notes uri will either get a
    > redirect or get the content at the new URI.


    I don't think it is worth it.

    > So what about the "edits" I mentioned? I have a few improvements in
    > mind. So does D Mark.
    >
    > My ideas for improvement:
    > A more useful default page, breadcrumb links (to the notes and to the
    > FAQ itself, technical editing (one nagging in particular), edits to the
    > contributors page, more semantic markup.


    Sounds good.

    > Why not change the notes, but keep the same location?
    > The notes would not be portable to another server.


    As long as the link URLs don't contain the jibbering domain then I
    don't think that is the case. The notes are portable. sed is probably
    up to the task. Alternately Apache config wizardry could do it.

    Also it is unlikely you will use a relative URL that is where a mirror
    site would want to keep it anyway so the situation wouldn't really be
    improved.

    > The benefit of
    > shorter URIs would not be realized.


    I don't think there are any real benefits.

    > Changes to the articles would
    > require either posting draft text to the group posting an in-progress
    > document at a different URI (which would be the new location).
    >
    > If posting a new draft URI, content and markup could be easily
    > critiqued. Any mistakes would be made on the copy pages. These would be
    > rectified in the approval process. The current live pages would not be
    > edited and would remain as they are.
    >
    > What do you think?


    Work on the pages on a different domain (beta.jibbering.com,
    beta.dhtmlkitchen.com something else) and when things are ready just
    copy the files into the current location with the current URLs.

    Peter
     
    Peter Michaux, May 22, 2009
    #18
  19. In comp.lang.javascript message <gv4rut$pl3$-
    september.org>, Thu, 21 May 2009 17:34:32, Garrett Smith
    <> posted:
    >Dr J R Stockton wrote:
    >> In comp.lang.javascript message <gv2u6d$8t0$-
    >> september.org>, Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:25, Garrett Smith
    >> <> posted:
    >>> It has been noted that the "notes" url is unmemorable. The current url
    >>> for the notes:
    >>> http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html
    >>>
    >>> It was proposed to provide a better URL for the notes. The proposed
    >>> path would be:- /faq/notes/ - defaulting to index.html.

    >> Not important. You have better things to do. There is no need to
    >>type
    >> the Notes URL at all; users should bookmark it and the FAQ.



    It is more important to get the FAQ right first, before putting effort
    into anything else. Too few people read the FAQ anyway; hardly any will
    read the Notes.

    Since the regular posting of FAQ parts has been working incorrectly for
    a couple of months at least, most of it has not been reviewed lately;
    remember that you are the editor rather than the author.

    Until the regular posting is fixed, I suggest that you post sections
    manually each day that you are at your machine, starting at the end and
    working backwards. Straight copy'n'paste from the Web view will
    suffice.



    Secondly, there is no real need for the FAQ notes to link to specific
    FAQ articles, which may in any case have changed enough to make the
    references moot. Just ensure that top and bottom of each FAQ Note page
    have links to the FAQ itself. Let the connection be made by the test
    of the subjects.


    Before anything else is done to the Notes, they should be reviewed for
    decrepitude, and problems fixed or noted. For example,
    <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html#toc> says
    [link] The complete FAQ and Notes in ZIP format (174KB)
    which contains
    "comp.lang.javascript FAQ - 8.1 - 2005-11-05".
    There is no great need nowadays to provide such ZIPs, and it is
    positively wasteful when they turn out to be out-of-date.



    It might be easier to keep the Notes as they were a year ago, as an
    archive. and build and maintain, in a different directory, an entirely
    new structure filled by selective copying and editing.


    >> Anyway, it is only necessary to put javascript faq notes in a
    >> browser address bar. I get 16e6 hits, with the right one first. One
    >> early hit is a CLJ wiki, at <http://www.cljwiki.org/>.
    >> Especially not important when you add the Notes Index to the FAQ, as
    >> discussed before.
    >>

    >
    >The notes index page is linked from the faq.


    >I do not agree that this index page should be included on the FAQ. This
    >would make the TOC excessively long.


    We discussed that before, and I thought that you had understood. The
    FAQ should contain about 20 lines for the Notes Index part; it should
    link only to what the top level of UL in the full Notes index links to,
    except miscellaneous, plus the contents of miscellaneous. That should
    be one link per FAQ notes web page. It would not be in the FAQ TOC; it
    would be in a subsection of a FAQ section, perhaps "3.3 What are the FAQ
    Notes?"



    In <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.htm>, there should be a
    conspicuous link to the FAQ; not just one buried in a paragraph at the
    bottom. Make the second t in that page upper-case, and make that "The
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ" be itself a link to the FAQ. That will be
    conspicuous, especially when you get rid of the non-default colouring
    of link-related text.



    The FAQ, as seen here, has an _apparent_ CSS fault. There is a big gap
    after headings (almost always) and a small one before them; it should be
    the other way round. Your code, but my whitespace :

    ... input elements in a way that is useful.</p>

    <h3 id='propertyAccess'>
    <a class='empty' name='propertyAccess'>&nbsp;</a>
    8.2 My element is named myselect[], how do I access it?</h3>

    <a class='empty' name='FAQ4_25'>&nbsp;</a>

    <p>Form controls with ...

    The FAQ4_25 part should be within the H3, perhaps first, I suspect :
    yes, seems so. And the CSS should give extra spacing before <Hn>;
    perhaps about an em for <H2> decreasing smoothly to almost nothing for
    <H6>.

    Perhaps that is the best XML can give - I suspect that the XML is a
    handicap rather than an advantage, and it would be better to abandon it.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
    Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
     
    Dr J R Stockton, May 23, 2009
    #19
  20. On May 23, 1:13 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > Peter Michaux wrote:
    > > On May 22, 12:13 am, Garrett Smith <> wrote:
    > >> Peter Michaux wrote:
    > >>> On May 21, 2:21 am, Richard Cornford <>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>>> On May 21, 8:00 am, Garrett Smith wrote:


    > >> What if new, shorter, more memorable URIs could be
    > >> used?

    >
    > > The URLs are not a problem. They don't need to be memorable. Who is
    > > running around in life needing the c.l.js URLs at the tip of their
    > > fingertips? The pages are found through Google search, links here,
    > > etc.

    >
    > Not a problem, no, but not ideal.


    If it is not a problem then I wouldn't touch it.

    > >> The strategy I have in mind?

    >
    > >> Do not remove the current notes. Do not use a shortcut URI and rewrite
    > >> to the existing one.

    >
    > >> Instead, recreate the notes on a different path. Edits to the notes will
    > >> take place in new location. The new location should not become public
    > >> until acceptably complete.

    >
    > >> Finally, after the copy is accepted by approval, it will be publicly
    > >> linked. Follwing that, a mod_rewrite or a redirect rule can be applied
    > >> so that anyone navigating to the faq_notes uri will either get a
    > >> redirect or get the content at the new URI.

    >
    > > I don't think it is worth it.

    >
    > Which part?


    Changing the URLs is not worth it. They are fine the way they are.


    > >> So what about the "edits" I mentioned? I have a few improvements in
    > >> mind. So does D Mark.

    >
    > >> My ideas for improvement:
    > >> A more useful default page, breadcrumb links (to the notes and to the
    > >> FAQ itself, technical editing (one nagging in particular), edits to the
    > >> contributors page, more semantic markup.

    >
    > > Sounds good.

    >
    > >> Why not change the notes, but keep the same location?
    > >> The notes would not be portable to another server.

    >
    > > As long as the link URLs don't contain the jibbering domain then I
    > > don't think that is the case. The notes are portable. sed is probably
    > > up to the task. Alternately Apache config wizardry could do it.

    >
    > As I posted in this thread, the links do contain the jibbering domain.


    I'm not sure what I was thinking. Even the jibbering domain in the
    URLs could be handled by sed. Someone who wants to mirror the pages
    could use cron, wget and sed to regularly mirror the files regardless
    of the jibbering domain and jibbering urls.


    > Links in the FAQ do, too. This is because the text that is posted to the
    > newsgroup needs full URLs, as relative paths would not work. However,
    > that can be fixed, and, if noone objects, I will use all relative URLs
    > on the FAQ page and have the URLs for the text links mechanically
    > generated to contain the protocol + domain.


    It is probably easier to just leave the full URLs in the FAQ. The
    burden of manipulating the URLs will be on the person who wants to
    mirror anyway.

    > > Also it is unlikely you will use a relative URL that is where a mirror
    > > site would want to keep it anyway so the situation wouldn't really be
    > > improved.

    >
    > Sorry, I didn't get what you meant.


    If the URLs are currently

    http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/form_access.html

    and you change them to be something else like

    /faq/notes/form_access.html

    then no matter what, if I want to mirror the site, I'm going to have
    to do some text manipulation anyway because I'd host them at

    /c.l.js/faq/notes/form_access.html

    , for example. (I think I'd also add the canonical tag in the head
    element if it wasn't already there.) So changing the URLs doesn't
    likely make it easier to mirror because it is not likely the person
    doing the mirroring will want to have the same paths anyway.


    > >> The benefit of
    > >> shorter URIs would not be realized.

    >
    > > I don't think there are any real benefits.

    >
    > Apparently nobody else except Thomas does, either.


    What does that tell you?

    If all but two want to keep the current URLs then it should be a dead
    issue. Democracy.


    > Did you read the w3c documents regarding URIs? I've read through them a
    > few times before (and again). I think that has had an impact on me.
    >
    > This part:-
    > | A few questions to consider when you choose a URI for a new location:
    > |
    > | * Can you easily write the chosen URI on a piece of paper, or can
    > | you remember it easily?
    > |
    > | * Can you spell the chosen URI on the phone?
    >
    > Underscore is not easily communicated over a (mobile) phone.


    I just say "underscore" to people and it seems to work. I don't do it
    over a mobile phone; however, and I'd bet no one has ever given a
    jibbering URL for the faq notes over the phone.



    > There may
    > be some browsers that convert speech to text, so a11y would be improved
    > by shorter URI (without an underscore).
    >
    > | * Does the chosen URI give hints about the content of the resource?
    > | Will it still make sense if the resource evolves?
    > |
    > | * Did you choose to locate the URI near the root level of your Web
    > | server? Are you certain it is the best location?
    >
    > "Where are the FAQ notes?".
    >
    > If a user does not know the URI, he may try direct navigation by typing
    > directly into the browser location bar.
    >
    > For example, let me try guessing the CSS spec right now:-
    >
    > www.w3.org/TR/css/


    I have no idea what "TR" abbreviates. I never would have guessed it.
    I've even seen that URL many times.


    > Brings up the CSS specification in FIrefox atwww.w3.org/TR/CSS/
    > (redirected). It works.
    >
    > Sort of works for other specs, too.
    >
    > Having a URI with path /faq/faq_notes/faq_notes.html is not a likely
    > first guess.


    No, but no one is guessing the FAQ Notes URLs anyway. People probably
    wouldn't even know they are called "FAQ Notes". They might guess they
    are called "FAQ Articles".

    > >> Changes to the articles would
    > >> require either posting draft text to the group posting an in-progress
    > >> document at a different URI (which would be the new location).

    >
    > >> If posting a new draft URI, content and markup could be easily
    > >> critiqued. Any mistakes would be made on the copy pages. These would be
    > >> rectified in the approval process. The current live pages would not be
    > >> edited and would remain as they are.

    >
    > >> What do you think?

    >
    > > Work on the pages on a different domain (beta.jibbering.com,
    > > beta.dhtmlkitchen.com something else) and when things are ready just
    > > copy the files into the current location with the current URLs.

    >
    > A separate domain is not needed for development. A path could work with
    > the same amount of effort.


    The important part is the majority of respondents think leaving the
    production URLs as they are is the best course of action.

    I think updating the HTML and making the page content more friendly is
    a great idea and worth the investment.

    Peter
     
    Peter Michaux, May 23, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Michael Tissington

    Looking for a FAQ control ...

    Michael Tissington, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    453
    Marina
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo

    FAQ or not FAQ?

    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo, Jan 8, 2007, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    889
    Grizlyk
    Jan 15, 2007
  3. Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    224
    Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
    Sep 22, 2003
  4. FAQ server

    FAQ - How do I direct someone to this FAQ?

    FAQ server, Aug 4, 2006, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    176
    Dr John Stockton
    Aug 4, 2006
  5. Peter Michaux

    FAQ/FAQ notes site makeover

    Peter Michaux, Nov 22, 2006, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    373
    Randy Webb
    Nov 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page