What moron moved the browser detection article?!

[David Mark]

I'm sure I know the answer, but had to draw attention to this monumental
bungling.

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

"The documents under faq_notes/ are unmaintained. An up-to-date version
of this document may be available at: /faq/notes/detect-browser/."

Are we trying to be like Dojo now? Put that stuff *back*! My stuff
links to that article. Lots of other sites do as well.

This is the last straw. Either the site is put back as it was
("memorable" URI's or not) or we get a new maintainer. Barring that,
I'll reproduce the stuff I want (very little) on my site and you can sue
me. I won't link to advertisements of incompetence like the above.

 

[nick]

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

The documents under faq_notes/ are unmaintained. An up-to-date version
of this document may be available at: /faq/notes/detect-browser/.

Wouldn't setting up 301 redirects make more sense?

The server is listed as apache2... something like the following should
do the trick (all one line).

RedirectMatch 301
/faq/faq_notes/not_browser_detect.html
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/notes/detect-browser/

 

[Garrett Smith]

I'm sure I know the answer, but had to draw attention to this monumental
bungling.

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

"The documents under faq_notes/ are unmaintained. An up-to-date version
of this document may be available at: /faq/notes/detect-browser/."

Are we trying to be like Dojo now? Put that stuff *back*! My stuff
links to that article. Lots of other sites do as well.

The document is not gone. It is there and so demanding that it be put it
back does not make much sense.


It is still there, with all the old navigation, including the
alternative dyn write article which is also probably linked from somewhere.

The only change is a link to the updated, maintained version.

This is the last straw. Either the site is put back as it was
("memorable" URI's or not) or we get a new maintainer. Barring that,
I'll reproduce the stuff I want (very little) on my site and you can sue
me. I won't link to advertisements of incompetence like the above.

As you are well aware, the updated article has many corrections, new
navigation, and removed irrelevant links. All this has been discussed on
the NG in a thread that you commented on. There really isn't any good
reason to for you to be linking to the old URL.

The question is not who moved it -- I've been completely clear about
what is being done with the notes -- and so since you know, whining
isn't going to elicit much of a change as far as motivating me to make
actions that appear favorable to you.

 

[Garrett Smith]

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


Wouldn't setting up 301 redirects make more sense?

The server is listed as apache2... something like the following should
do the trick (all one line).

RedirectMatch 301
/faq/faq_notes/not_browser_detect.html
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/notes/detect-browser/

That sounds right.

The old URL contains links to the alt dynwrite article which may be
mentioned. It was suggested at least once, but I believe twice, that a
notice should be placed at the top of those notes pages indicating that
they were unmaintained.

http://groups.google.com.my/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/0b0bc99591f00fde

Nobody objected to it.

The 301 redirect sounds right. Are there any reasons for not doing that?

 

[David Mark]

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


Wouldn't setting up 301 redirects make more sense?

Infinitely. Presuming there is good reason to move them at all.

 

[David Mark]

The document is not gone. It is there and so demanding that it be put it
back does not make much sense.

I think you know what I mean.

It is still there, with all the old navigation, including the
alternative dyn write article which is also probably linked from somewhere.

Which is not good at all, is it? We don't need an old and a new version
of the same document.

The only change is a link to the updated, maintained version.

That's the problem.

As you are well aware, the updated article has many corrections, new
navigation, and removed irrelevant links. All this has been discussed on
the NG in a thread that you commented on. There really isn't any good
reason to for you to be linking to the old URL.

Except that I'll be damned if I am going to go back and change every
link on my site, not to mention links in forums, newsgroups, etc.

The question is not who moved it -- I've been completely clear about
what is being done with the notes -- and so since you know, whining
isn't going to elicit much of a change as far as motivating me to make
actions that appear favorable to you.

ISTM that common sense has already prevailed. All it took was a little
attention.

 

[Garrett Smith]

David Mark wrote:

[...]


Except that I'll be damned if I am going to go back and change every
link on my site, not to mention links in forums, newsgroups, etc.

Newsgroups messages won't change; the discussions and context for where
URLs were mentioned will remain. That is a reason for keeping all the
old notes stuff unchanged.

Adding a link to the updated version gives the reader the option to
decide if he wants the old version or the new version. If he chooses the
old version, there is a chance that he may get a link to an FAQ entry
that has been removed.

When a NG contains URL pointing to a discussion of something in the
article, and the article, the article contents being relevant to that
discussion have some relevant meaning. The problem with changing the old
notes is that

[...]

ISTM that common sense has already prevailed. All it took was a little
attention.

Adding a redirect seems to be a better option. Unless there is good
reason or objection and so far I haven't heard any.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:

[...]


Except that I'll be damned if I am going to go back and change every
link on my site, not to mention links in forums, newsgroups, etc.

Newsgroups messages won't change; the discussions and context for where
URLs were mentioned will remain. That is a reason for keeping all the
old notes stuff unchanged.

Adding a link to the updated version gives the reader the option to
decide if he wants the old version or the new version. If he chooses the
old version, there is a chance that he may get a link to an FAQ entry
that has been removed.

When a NG contains URL pointing to a discussion of something in the
article, and the article, the article contents being relevant to that
discussion have some relevant meaning. The problem with changing the old
notes is that

[...]

ISTM that common sense has already prevailed. All it took was a little
attention.

Adding a redirect seems to be a better option. Unless there is good
reason or objection and so far I haven't heard any.

No, it is the right call. I can't imagine there will be an objection to
that. I just couldn't stand the Dojo-esque road sign. All of their
docs, forums, etc. come up with such messages when hitting them through
search results. It's maddening.