Automatic Redirection

[Gerard M Foley]

Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?

Sorry if this is simple, but I am sometimes simple myself.

Happy New Year
--
Gerry
http://www.pbase.com/gfoley9999/
http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/aerial/aerial.html
http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...ypt/egypt.html

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Darin McGrew wrote:

Gus Richter <gu********@net scape.net> wrote:

I suggest that you lobby W3C to get META-Refresh deprecated if it is
such pure nonsense,[...]

You mean like this?
http://w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-no-periodic-refresh
http://w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-no-auto-forward

I think more like the relevant "Note" towards the end of this section
of the HTML/4.01 specification:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...html#h-7.4.4.2

Oh well, it seems that the technically correct solution usually loses
out? Then, later, they come whining about the undesirable
consequences that their ersatz fixes are causing. Ho hum.

[Jim Lawton]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:22:46 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk>
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jim Lawton wrote:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:00:44 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:

>Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your. initiative> wrote:
>> People here have got a real downer on using frames to achieve the
>> effect, but they've not actually said why.
>
>See http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/fra...frame-problems
I reiterate what I said to Jan :-

It doesn't become any more true by repetition...

not for emphasis, but because you might not have seen it there

We're talking about redirection

Actually no, we're talking about a piece of dirty trickery which gives
an allusion of redirection without any proper redirection taking
place.

So the fact that we arrive at the destination page hasn't actually happened?
What reality are we in here?

here not the general failings of frames.

You mean by making use of frames for this purpose you can miraculously
spirit away their relevant shortcomings? Brave man...

No, if the general failings of something don't affect a particular situation,
they are not relevant.
(For what it's worth, I'd say you're offering these clue-impaired
authors the combined shortcomings of all your aggregated hacks, with
no benefits whatever. If they're incapable of doing the job properly,
perhaps they should just publish a rump HTML page with a link on it,
pointing to the real URL. That would even satisfy the WAI
requirements , even if it's not exactly what I'd have chosen.)

Aha, a name caller, OK, bye

Jim

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:58:13 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote:

JRS: In article <Pi************ *************** ****@lxplus008. cern.ch>,
dated Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:03:12, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.autho
ring.html, Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physic s.gla.ac.uk> posted :

On Tue, Dec 28, Jim Lawton inscribed on the eternal scroll:

Well, he might not have access to his server, for instance...

Then he's not really publishing pages on the WWW.

In that case, you must consider that none of the many thousands, indeed
possibly millions, of pages www.<hostname>. demon.co.uk/* are really
published on the WWW.

Finally, you have understood that part :-)

Given the economical "strength" of the Brittish Pound today, decent user
configurable www hosting can be had for about one pound per month.
(regardless of what is your favourite pub, it means just about one less
pint per month to keep your economy in a positive balance)

How much are you stuffing into the "deamon" every month? I mean phone
calls, www access, news, email and everything else related?

--
Rex

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jim Lawton wrote:

Premise (2) You *need* to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm,
without the user being aware that it happened.
When the premise is nonsense, it's no surprise that the answer makes
even less sense. Do you even know what a URL is?
That wasn't an option, as it isn't for millions of home users who
create websites on the ISP they first thought of.

You're not going to talk us through this scenario, are you? You have
a pre-conceived notion of a solution, without caring what the problem
was, and you give a pretty good impression that you're going to defend
it, no matter what. Ho hum.

[Darin McGrew]

I wrote:

First, I'd seriously reconsider the "need" to change the URL from
http://www.example.com/a.htm to http://www.example.com/b.htm in the first
place. See http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your. initiative> wrote:

Premise (2) You *need* to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm, without the
user being aware that it happened.
If I *need* this to happen reliably without causing accessibility problems,
then I *need* HTTP Redirect responses, not the meta-refresh hack.
Second, assuming that I do indeed "need" to change the URL, I'd FTP a "web
page" named .htaccess to my server. Premise (1) You have no access to your servers, except to FTP web pages
(which a .htaccess file isn't
If the web host has deliberately blocked my ability to FTP a .htaccess file
(or other non-"web page" files) to the server, then I'd move to a web host
that isn't crippled.
Third, if the .htaccess file didn't configure the necessary redirection,
then I'd move to a web host that isn't crippled. That wasn't an option, as it isn't for millions of home users who create
websites on the ISP they first thought of.
It's always an option. It may be an unpleasant option for some, but it's
always an option.
Or maybe you get the tiger because you stop wasting time throwing water
balloons at him, and take the initiative to get a tool that can really do
the job.

And that you don't get to choose the tools you want, but the ones you have to
hand.

Next time I choose to go on a safari trip, I'll avoid tour guides that tell
me to throw water balloons at charging tigers.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanford alumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp. com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back."

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:35:38 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote:

JRS: In article <ab************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:09:17, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy .com> posted :

Further; the server is under your control,

You are unpleasantly naive.

And so are you; Happy New Year regardless...

--
Rex

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:

Then he's not really publishing pages on the WWW.
In that case, you must consider that none of the many thousands,
indeed possibly millions, of pages www.<hostname>. demon.co.uk/* are
really published on the WWW.

I'm not sure which part of demon's offering you're having trouble
with? When my colleague had his family web site at demon.co.uk, it
seemed to me that he had a technically adequate offering. In what way
has that now changed?

Oh yes, I'm beginning to see now. Demon's "FAQ" link leads to 404
Page not found; and their "Tutorials" link leads to... 404 Page not
found. Looks as if their once adequate service has been broken.
Too bad.
Actually, since this newsgroup's charter is, according to Boris, for
HTML authoring, and makes no mention of the distribution aspects of
Web publication, discussion of servers and their configuration is
off-topic.

That's right. But that doesn't mean that questions posed here in good
faith should be palmed-off with some third-rate ersatz (which didn't
even have the excuse of being HTML), instead of being pointed to the
real answer. Which, if I recall rightly, is how this thread started
out - and the gentleman who offered the right answer got roundly
chastised for his pains. Ho hum.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <Xn************ *************** **@193.229.0.31 >, dated
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:29:35, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tu t.fi> posted :

_All_ this babbling would have been avoided if the OP has simply
checked the FAQ. Since checking the FAQs is one of the basic rules for
making use of the technical groups on Usenet, anyone who failed to do
that (even after subtle and non-subtle hints) surely deserves to
swallow the nonsense that you offer as an answer.

But what do you mean by "the FAQ"?

No FAQ is posted to this newsgroup; there's just a couple of automated
posts weekly or so, seemingly not under the control of any present user.

One of them is 2.5 years old, and of no use whatsoever.

The other is over four years old; it defines "FAQ" reasonably well, and
says that this newsgroup does not actually have a FAQ of its own and
cites a WDG document.

One cannot reasonably expect anyone to put much belief in such stale
news articles.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote:

But what do you mean by "the FAQ"?
You still haven't babbled enough?
- - there's just a couple of
automated posts weekly or so,

And you keep refusing to admit the value of the resources that they
point to.

As I have repeatedly said, the FAQ is fairly old and dusty, but it is
still very valuable to people who ask common questions. Isn't it
remarkable that despite the age, it still beats your (and many other
people's) "helpful" answers without breathing hard?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <Pi************ *************** ****@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk

, dated Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:36, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.au thoring.html, Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> posted :On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:

>Then he's not really publishing pages on the WWW.
In that case, you must consider that none of the many thousands,
indeed possibly millions, of pages www.<hostname>. demon.co.uk/* are
really published on the WWW.

I'm not sure which part of demon's offering you're having trouble
with? When my colleague had his family web site at demon.co.uk, it
seemed to me that he had a technically adequate offering. In what way
has that now changed?

The trouble is in your mind :-

In article <Pi************ *************** ****@lxplus008. cern.ch>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:03:12, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physic s.gla.ac.uk> posted :On Tue, Dec 28, Jim Lawton inscribed on the eternal scroll:

Well, he might not have access to his server, for instance...

Then he's not really publishing pages on the WWW.

Assuming that your colleague had an equivalent class of ISP service to
mine, which is no more than highly probable, then he will not have had
access to his server other than for up- and down- load.

Did you spot that F G S is now * F G-S ?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.