By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,625 Members | 1,283 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,625 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Automatic Redirection

P: n/a
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
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
52 Replies


P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?


Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.

HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?


Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.

HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.

cryptic eh?

I think he speaks of this kind of thing ...
http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E303.html

another way is to make your "landing" page a single frame frames page, and make
the source of that frame your redirection URL ... this is used by many "parking"
services like :-

<html>
<head>
<!-- url = http://homepage.ntlworld.com/xxxxxxxxx/ -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1"><title>xxxxxxxxxx</title></head>
<frameset rows="100%,*" border="0" framespacing="0" frameborder="0">
<frame src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/xxxxxxxxx/">
</frameset>
<noframes>
<body>
The website for jimlawton.info can be found by clicking <a
href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/xxxxxxxxxx/">here</a>.
xxxxxxxxxxis registered through <a href="http://easily.co.uk">Easily.co.uk - get
web site hosting or domain name registration here</a><br></body>
</noframes>
</html>

HTH

Jim
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
I think he speaks of this kind of thing ...
http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E303.html
Then you haven't understood the question, still less the answer.
This is a common symptom of trying to help without even reading the
FAQs first.

(303 response code is very special, and it is highly improbable that
the OP wanted anything like that)
another way is to make your "landing" page a single frame frames
page, and make the source of that frame your redirection URL ...


So you insist on suggesting "solutions" that in reality just create
problems.

Please keep your forged From field as a cluelessness/trolling indicator
until you wish to contribute something useful.

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

Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:36:08 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
I think he speaks of this kind of thing ...
http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E303.html
Then you haven't understood the question, still less the answer.
This is a common symptom of trying to help without even reading the
FAQs first.


I think I did. The answer isn't an answer but a hint.
(303 response code is very special, and it is highly improbable that
the OP wanted anything like that)
But how would we know?

another way is to make your "landing" page a single frame frames
page, and make the source of that frame your redirection URL ...


So you insist on suggesting "solutions" that in reality just create
problems.


I don't "insist", I offer a common solution.If you were to explain why it
creates problems, then we might learn something, as it is, we are left in
"ignorance".
Please keep your forged From field as a cluelessness/trolling indicator
until you wish to contribute something useful.


My from field isn't forged, it is a hint. It is only necessary for anyone to
google to find out who I am, as I use my own name, not a common thing amongst
trolls.

I thank you for your curteous and helpful contribution. Please don't hesitate to
post more in the same vein if it makes you feel better. It might be more useful
to help the OP with his problem, however, as I tried to.

Jim
jml at jimlawton dot info

Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:43:03 GMT, Jim Lawton
<uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?
Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.
HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.

cryptic eh?
Not at all; what the OP is asking for has been a standard function in
the HTTP protocol from day one of its existence.
I think he speaks of this kind of thing ...
http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E303.html
That's "bull" if you forgive me for saying it out loud.

The OP has a "hunch" that it should be possible to type in a URL in
his www client, send that URL as part of an HTTP request to a server
that in turn redirects his www client to request another URL resource
instead.

That's simple as PI; configure the server to return an HTTP "302 Moved
Temporarily" header as a response to the first URL. There's not even a
need to actually have a specific resource (page) in storage at the
server for that first URL.

For any decent www server, all it takes is a few lines of plain text
in a configuration file for that server. (for Apache that would be an
entry in the users own .htaccess file)
another way is to make your "landing" page a single frame frames page...


And that's even worse than your first suggestion. Why do you insist to
cross the river to fetch water?

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:02:42 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:43:03 GMT, Jim Lawton
<uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?

Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.
HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.
cryptic eh?
Not at all; what the OP is asking for has been a standard function in
the HTTP protocol from day one of its existence.
I think he speaks of this kind of thing ...
http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E303.html


That's "bull" if you forgive me for saying it out loud.

The OP has a "hunch" that it should be possible to type in a URL in
his www client, send that URL as part of an HTTP request to a server
that in turn redirects his www client to request another URL resource
instead.

That's simple as PI; configure the server to return an HTTP "302 Moved
Temporarily" header as a response to the first URL. There's not even a
need to actually have a specific resource (page) in storage at the
server for that first URL.


Maybe that's the kind of pointer he was looking for?
For any decent www server, all it takes is a few lines of plain text
in a configuration file for that server. (for Apache that would be an
entry in the users own .htaccess file)


Well, he might not have access to his server, for instance...
another way is to make your "landing" page a single frame frames page...


And that's even worse than your first suggestion. Why do you insist to
cross the river to fetch water?


The firt wasn't "my suggestion", it was what your first post led me to
conjecture.

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

And if it's such a dreadful suggestion, why is it the technique used by one of
the major domain name sellers in the UK? And I don't think I "insisted" did I?

Jim

Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:
That's simple as PI; configure the server to return an HTTP "302
Moved Temporarily" header as a response to the first URL.


Why 302? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems obvious
that people really want something that means _permanent_ (301)
redirection. For some odd reason, Apache uses 302 as the default, but
we need not imitate that.

Even if the redirection is "temporary" in the everyday sense (e.g.,
John Doe is moving his pages from server A to server B and might well
soon move them to server C, the redirection should normally be
permanent in the HTTP sense (see
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/...html#sec10.3.2 ).

If e.g. a search engine is checking things out, it should observe the
change and store the B address into its data base, throwing the old one
away. Otherwise*) there's the risk that later, when the site has been
moved to C, the search engine finds an A address in its data base and
tries to use it but that server no longer exists or the redirection has
been removed (e.g. because the person no longer pays for it), so the
search engine will not find the B address and get redirected to C.

*) For temporary redirection, the correct action for a search engine is
to use it to fetch the actual content but keep the old address in its
data base and return it in search results.

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

Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
JRS: In article <k9********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?


Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.

HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.


Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse? The question that you have given a sort of indirect
answer to is not even the question that was actually asked.

The OP wishes, he says, to write a Web page that redirects; and a Web
page is the material, headers apart, transmitted in response to an HTTP
request; typically, at least, starting <DOCTYPE or <HTML and ending
</HTML>.

He has not asked about configuring a WWW server. It might be useful to
tell him something about that, or to cite explicitly a reliable
reference; but that does not answer the question that he asked. He may
not even have access to server configuration.
The answer to the question asked is "Yes, though I cannot be sure that
it works on all possible systems, nor that formal standards cover the
matter."

And for the question implied, an illustration :
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity.htm> summons a page
including, in the <HEAD> section, a line
<META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="2; URL='gravity0.htm'">,
which, after 2 seconds, summons
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity.htm> as a replacement; but
ISTR that one is, or was, advised to include an ordinary link like
<a href="gravity0.htm">gravity0.htm</a> as a backup.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
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. This is something
that anyone who is putting web pages on the WWW *needs* as a regular
part of their publishing repertoire. And it's so easy to put this
under user control in any serious web server (e.g Apache). Anything
less would be short-changing the user, and they should go moaning to
their service provider, not trying to find excuses to post to usenet.
another way is to make your "landing" page a single frame frames
page...


oh, mercy...
And if it's such a dreadful suggestion, why is it the technique used
by one of the major domain name sellers in the UK?


Without naming names - would we buy a used web page from such
unserious operators?
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <k9********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

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


Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.

HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.

Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse? The question that you have given a sort of indirect
answer to is not even the question that was actually asked.


Perhaps because they did not have the correct answer and perhaps they
have learned something?

Excellent response and the right answer from where I sit.

I look forward to further tart and cryptic responses.

--
Gus
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a

"Dr John Stockton" <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J5**************@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
JRS: In article <k9********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirectsthe user to another page without any action by the user?
Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.

HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.


Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse? The question that you have given a sort of indirect
answer to is not even the question that was actually asked.

The OP wishes, he says, to write a Web page that redirects; and a Web
page is the material, headers apart, transmitted in response to an HTTP
request; typically, at least, starting <DOCTYPE or <HTML and ending
</HTML>.

He has not asked about configuring a WWW server.


He asked a question in such a vague manner that it's not evident which of
several things he's trying to accomplish, and such that it looks like he may
be a newbie who doesn't even know whether what he wants to do would be best
accomplished by a web page or by some other means.
It might be useful to
tell him something about that, or to cite explicitly a reliable
reference; but that does not answer the question that he asked. He may
not even have access to server configuration.
Who said anything about configuration? If he's using any kind of server-side
processing, there's a ready-made Redirect method. He's only out of luck on
that count if he's using straight HTML.
The answer to the question asked is "Yes, though I cannot be sure that
it works on all possible systems, nor that formal standards cover the
matter."

And for the question implied, an illustration :
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity.htm> summons a page
including, in the <HEAD> section, a line
<META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="2; URL='gravity0.htm'">,
which, after 2 seconds, summons
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity.htm> as a replacement; but
ISTR that one is, or was, advised to include an ordinary link like
<a href="gravity0.htm">gravity0.htm</a> as a backup.


That's an answer that the regulars here won't provide, because it's
generally not a good thing to do--and there's no reason why it would be
preferable to directing the user via the HTTP response code. (If the user,
in spite of not having said so [see, you're just as happy as anyone to
answer questions the OP hasn't asked], does want a page that stays up for
two seconds before requesting another page, well, that's a bad idea too,
unless the purpose of your web site is to administer a timed test or speed
reading training of some kind. Don't make assumptions about how long a user
will take to read something. Let him click a link to continue when he's
ready to move on.)

Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse?


This group has a FAQ, which is partly dusty and would need some
addition, but it surely answers many frequently asked questions
far better than a random collection of answers from people who didn't
bother checking the FAQ.

People who ask frequently asked questions without checking the FAQ
effectively ask to be mislead.

So what's _your_ excuse for giving a wrong answer when the correct
answer is available in the FAQ?

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

Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse?

This group has a FAQ, which is partly dusty and would need some
addition, but it surely answers many frequently asked questions
far better than a random collection of answers from people who didn't
bother checking the FAQ.

People who ask frequently asked questions without checking the FAQ
effectively ask to be mislead.

So what's _your_ excuse for giving a wrong answer when the correct
answer is available in the FAQ?


Because it may be the "right" answer for the OP?

Since all the Regulars know the FAQ by heart, what is so wrong in
directing the OP to:
http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html#redirect
With a further reference to:
http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html#index-better
Any other additional helpful comments such as:
All these factors considered and if META-Refresh is still suitable for
your needs, then you may be interested to know that it is supported by
Moz, Opera, IE and even by NC (that I am aware of at the moment).

Perhaps there should be a FAQ item describing the proper method of
responses in order to avoid such discord?

--
Gus
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:57:01 +0000, Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
JRS: In article <k9********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?


Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.

HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.


Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse? The question that you have given a sort of indirect
answer to is not even the question that was actually asked.

The OP wishes, he says, to write a Web page that redirects; and a Web
page is the material, headers apart, transmitted in response to an HTTP
request; typically, at least, starting <DOCTYPE or <HTML and ending
</HTML>.

He has not asked about configuring a WWW server. It might be useful to
tell him something about that, or to cite explicitly a reliable
reference; but that does not answer the question that he asked. He may
not even have access to server configuration.
The answer to the question asked is "Yes, though I cannot be sure that
it works on all possible systems, nor that formal standards cover the
matter."

And for the question implied, an illustration :
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity.htm> summons a page
including, in the <HEAD> section, a line
<META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="2; URL='gravity0.htm'">,
which, after 2 seconds, summons
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity.htm> as a replacement; but
ISTR that one is, or was, advised to include an ordinary link like
<a href="gravity0.htm">gravity0.htm</a> as a backup.


Unfortunately that doesn't cover his requirement that the first page should not
display. Zero length delays are frowned on.

I confirm I *have* read the FAQ,

http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/publish.html

which doesn't suggest any other client-side solution.

People here have got a real downer on using frames to achieve the effect, but
they've not actually said why. Of course, it works fine, and millions of people
use it unknowingly every day, but hey, I'm willing to listen, and to be told a
better client-side method.

Jim

Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:57:01 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <k9********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 04:08:03, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> posted :
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:16:39 GMT, "Gerard M Foley"
<gf****@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
Can one write a webpage which is not displayed but which simply redirects
the user to another page without any action by the user?
Sure; read up on how your www server is designed to handle such things.
HTTP response codes should be your matter of interest.

Why are the regulars here so determined to be unhelpful given the
slightest excuse?
What the heck? How can you say that an indication of what needs to be
studied in order to solve a problem the correct way is an "unhelpful"
answer?

Google gives some 925000 hits for a search key of "HTTP Response
Headers" just about everything you need to know is available on the
first result page. Go figure, or you can continue to "spoon feed" your
wrong solutions for the disappointing results it is guaranteed to
produce when least wanted.
The question that you have given a sort of indirect
answer to is not even the question that was actually asked.

The OP wishes, he says, to write a Web page that redirects;...
Correction, the OP wanted...

"a web page which is not displayed but which simply redirects".

Your own answer further down in your post fails to meet the OP's request
on that "not displayed" point, right?

[...]
He has not asked about configuring a WWW server.
Read the OP's question again.
Then answer this; is there a better way to guarantee a "no display"
situation than to have no web page at all in the first place?

Further; the server is under your control, the user agent is not.
If you need some acceptable level of assurance that a redirect will
really take place, you need to set it up on the server, period.

The remaining question is whether to set up a 301 or a 302 response as
Jukka was giving arguments about.

While I can agree with Jukka's statements in general terms, this
question from the OP is not really about anything that has moved to a
new location either permanent or temporary.

What the OP really wants is a URL that just does not represent any
presentable resource at all but only redirects it self to another,
probably fixed, location. Spiders would find such "other locations"
anyway, regardless of the existence of a URL that does not represent a
real resource, so to me a 302 response is correct in this special
situation.
...He may not even have access to server configuration.


Well, you don't but that's because you are using a crappy service in the
first place and as Alain said, "then he is not really publishing on the
www".

And just for the record, you would be surprised to find how many www
service providers who actually do allow a basic level of server configs
for their users.

From what I have seen over the years, it's usually that the users have
never bothered to find out what level of server capacity they have
available.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:23:12 GMT, 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.
Have you ever tried to bookmark a specific frame state, as produced by
the "framed" simple minded www author?

Where you able to use that bookmark to get back to exactly what you
where looking at in the first place?

[...]
...but hey, I'm willing to listen, and to be told a
better client-side method.


There is none.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
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
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I can take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once."
Jul 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.net> wrote:
Since all the Regulars know the FAQ by heart, what is so wrong in
directing the OP to:
http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html#redirect


Nothing particular, if you are willing to do so, despite the flow of
wrong answers that people will consume more eagerly since they look
simpler. Most of the regulars have become kind of frustrated with that.

After all, if people who ask questions here wanted _correct_ answers
and wanted them _fast_, they would have checked the FAQ before asking.

What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".

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

Jul 23 '05 #19

P: n/a
Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote:
Correction, the OP wanted...

"a web page which is not displayed but which simply redirects".
I'm afraid we don't really know what that means, unless the OP explains
it. But the fair assumption is that it means the common redirection,
for whatever reason (e.g., because a page has been moved, or because
one wants to create a shorter URL for a resource that has a long URL,
or because a mistyped URL was published in a newspaper).
The remaining question is whether to set up a 301 or a 302 response
as Jukka was giving arguments about.

While I can agree with Jukka's statements in general terms, this
question from the OP is not really about anything that has moved to
a new location either permanent or temporary.
Technically 301 is defined in terms of a "new" URL (which logically
implies an "old" URL), but this needs to be interpreted liberally,
since there is no other way to handle a wide range of cases where a URL
is to be permanently redirected to another URL even if the two cannot
be genuinely classified as "old" and "new".
What the OP really wants is a URL that just does not represent any
presentable resource at all but only redirects it self to another,
probably fixed, location.
Maybe. But a redirected URL represents a resource through the
redirection.
Spiders would find such "other locations"
anyway, regardless of the existence of a URL that does not
represent a real resource, so to me a 302 response is correct in
this special situation.


I still disagree. There is no reason to assume that spiders find the
resource some other way. Moreover, search engines could not know that
they can simply discard the URL that gets redirected - they would need
to treat the two URLs as essentially separate.

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

Jul 23 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".


This has been a staple of the ciw groups from way back when. As one who
has been on these groups for mumble-something years, I can say with
assurance that the bogosity factor will *never* go away.

The frustration you're voicing arises from the disagreeable fact that, far
too often, the bogus "solutions" have the *appearance* of "working". Tie
that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on the web
are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things yet (b) all
too eager from sociological imperatives to convey the *impression* of
being tech-savvy, and you have a *systemic* bias towards, and indeed
preference for, the Rube Goldbergian.

Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a sense
of accomplishment!

But the real tragedy is that, for the most part, we are all deceived. The
web is not in the least bit high tech. It is an astonishing monument to
backyard garage mechanic fiddlefutzing and kludgery, where no idea is ever
bad enough not to (a) be implemented, and (b) become popular.


Jul 23 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:37:12 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:23:12 GMT, 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.
Have you ever tried to bookmark a specific frame state, as produced by
the "framed" simple minded www author?

Where you able to use that bookmark to get back to exactly what you
where looking at in the first place?


That's not a reason for not doing it, it's something to be aware of. We're
talking about redirection here not the general failings of frames.

I guess using target " _top" in the links of his destination page will
eliminate the frameset from future navigation.

Jim


[...]
...but hey, I'm willing to listen, and to be told a
better client-side method.


There is none.


Jul 23 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:00:44 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.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 :-

We're talking about redirection here not the general failings of frames.

The redirecting frameset contains only one frame, the source for which is the
destination page. The default target of the destination page is "_top".

Jim
Jul 23 '05 #23

P: n/a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:23:12 +0000, Jim Lawton wrote:
Unfortunately that doesn't cover his requirement that the first page
should not display.
That is a correct description of his best understanding of what he
*thought* he needed.
Zero length delays are frowned on.
Any idea why?
I confirm I *have* read the FAQ,

http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/publish.html

which doesn't suggest any other client-side solution.
Because this is not a "client-side" problem.
People here have got a real downer on using frames to achieve the effect,
Why are frames necessary to "achieve the effect"? (Did you find the word
"frame" in section 4.7 of the document you cited?)
Of course, it works fine, and millions of people use it unknowingly every
day,
The low tech kludgery of the web, in a nutshell.
but hey, I'm willing to listen, and to be told a better client-side method.


Perhaps you should try explaining why this is a "client-side" issue at all.
Jul 23 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:27:58 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
This has been a staple of the ciw groups from way back when. As one who
has been on these groups for mumble-something years, I can say with
assurance that the bogosity factor will *never* go away.

The frustration you're voicing arises from the disagreeable fact that, far
too often, the bogus "solutions" have the *appearance* of "working".


The "appearance of working"? - every time you write a web page which relies on
browser sniffing or css hacks, you are giving the "appearance of working" .

If it "appears to be working" to the end-user and gives an acceptable level of
service, then it *is* working.
Tie that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on the web
are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things
End users shouldn't have to be. Professionals should do things to the best of
their ability, but in a world of disparate technologies randomly implemented
specialists are rare.
yet (b) all
too eager from sociological imperatives to convey the *impression* of
being tech-savvy, and you have a *systemic* bias towards, and indeed
preference for, the Rube Goldbergian.

Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a sense
of accomplishment!
That is a fantasy - I can assure you that the majority of people tinkering about
on the WWW have no awareness of server-side technology, and the hosting services
they use are entirely passive, and their chances of getting say NTL to do
anything for them at an individual level approximate to nil. Further, they
aren't expecting a thousand hits an hour but a few per day, if that.

To say as Alan does, of people who publish this way "Then he's not really
publishing pages on the WWW" is like saying that because I got into the garden
through the window and nor through the door I'm not in the garden.

And people who have no access to their server *have to* use client side
solutions.

The OP's question is entirely clear to anyone not blinded by their own technical
perceptions, and John Stockton stated it quite clearly. The guy asked for a *web
page* that is *not displayed* and which would *redirect* without user action.

All server-side solutions, no matter how perfect, simple and desirable, don't
answer that question.

All client-side solutions, however manky, second-rate and undesirable do.
But the real tragedy is that, for the most part, we are all deceived. The
web is not in the least bit high tech. It is an astonishing monument to
backyard garage mechanic fiddlefutzing and kludgery, where no idea is ever
bad enough not to (a) be implemented, and (b) become popular.


In this you are entirely correct. Until the advent of the PC we seemed to be
progressing towards a sane unix-based engineering model of computing. Then a few
guys came out of a garage who knew nothing about standards or anything else
except what the world wanted, and turned the everything on its head.

Jim

Jul 23 '05 #25

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:48:56 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:

snip

Perhaps you should try explaining why this is a "client-side" issue at all.


See my response to your other post.

Jim
Jul 23 '05 #26

P: n/a
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:27:58 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".
This has been a staple of the ciw groups from way back when. As one who
has been on these groups for mumble-something years, I can say with
assurance that the bogosity factor will *never* go away.

The frustration you're voicing arises from the disagreeable fact that, far
too often, the bogus "solutions" have the *appearance* of "working".


The "appearance of working"? - every time you write a web page which relies on
browser sniffing or css hacks, you are giving the "appearance of working" .

If it "appears to be working" to the end-user and gives an acceptable level of
service, then it *is* working.


What Arjun means--I'm pretty certain, since I would have said the same
thing--is that it "appears" to the site's designer to work because it
*happens* to work in *his* browser with *his* configuration under
*his* operating system on *his* computer at *his* selected resolution
and window size. It doesn't occur to him that his site won't work that
way for everyone else. It's as if you manufactured and sold a car
after having assured yourself that your design runs fine on the street
outside your house on sunny days, without ever having checked it on
hills, on highways, in the rain, etc.
Tie that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on the web
are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things
End users shouldn't have to be. Professionals should do things to the best of
their ability, but in a world of disparate technologies randomly implemented
specialists are rare.


But that's the point. There *are* methods that are better suited to
accommodating the range of technologies that exist, and there are
methods that are worse.
yet (b) all
too eager from sociological imperatives to convey the *impression* of
being tech-savvy, and you have a *systemic* bias towards, and indeed
preference for, the Rube Goldbergian.

Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a sense
of accomplishment!
That is a fantasy - I can assure you that the majority of people tinkering about
on the WWW have no awareness of server-side technology,


So when they ask a question to which that's the best answer, the
correct course is to leave them in the dark?

[snipping comments about typical site owners' access to server
functions]

The OP's question is entirely clear to anyone not blinded by their own technical
perceptions, and John Stockton stated it quite clearly. The guy asked for a *web
page* that is *not displayed* and which would *redirect* without user action.


What if someone in a newbie drivers' group asked, "How do you use the
clutch to steer a car?" Would you give him some kludge involving the
clutch that happens to make some models of car turn left or right, or
would you tell him about the steering wheel? You're not helping
someone when his question itself indicates that he's approaching the
problem the wrong way. Actually, people who ask questions would often
be better off asking questions that make the fewest possible
assumptions about the answer.

When I was a kid, my mother told me that when I went to the doctor
with a complaint, I shouldn't start off with "I have the flu" or "I've
got food poisoning." Instead, I should tell him what I can
*observe*--I've got a temperature, I'm exhausted, I'm naseous--and let
*him* figure out what's going on. Otherwise, a less-than-alert doctor
might let my complaint, as stated, be his starting point and go down
the wrong path.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 23 '05 #27

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:09:31 +0000, Jim Lawton wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:27:58 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:33:07 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
The "appearance of working"? - every time you write a web page which relies on
browser sniffing or css hacks, you are giving the "appearance of working" .
Correct. There are more browsers and browsing situations than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.
If it "appears to be working" to the end-user and gives an acceptable
level of service, then it *is* working.
No. It is appearing to work, for that end-user. There is a difference
between working by accident and working by design. The ignorant have no
notion of what level of service could be acceptable.
Tie that with the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of people on
the web are (b) not in the least bit interested in the why of things


End users shouldn't have to be.


Truly end users shouldn't, because they are merely consumers of web pages.
But putting up a web page - or, for that matter, dealing with how URIs
and HTTP *work* - necessarily involves you with the relevant technology.
Professionals should do things to the best of their ability,
That's the point. Perfeshnals have become respectable on the web.
Adding a line to a .htaccess file is just too *simple*. No no no.
Writing a HTML page with frames and meta refreshes - now there's a
sense of accomplishment!


That is a fantasy - I can assure you that the majority of people
tinkering about on the WWW have no awareness of server-side technology,


And this is not a problem?
and the hosting services they use are entirely passive, and their
chances of getting say NTL to do anything for them at an individual
level approximate to nil.
This is known without even trying?
And people who have no access to their server *have to* use client
side solutions.
No, they need merely find an appropriate server. There are plenty.
The guy asked for a *web page* that is *not displayed* and which
would *redirect* without user action.


In point of fact, there is no such thing. Consider this page:

<html>
<head><title></title></head>
<body></body>
</html>

Is it *displayed* (to copy your emphasis) when it is served with HTTP 200?

That's why there is no such thing as a "client-side" solution.

Jul 23 '05 #28

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.net> wrote:

Since all the Regulars know the FAQ by heart, what is so wrong in
directing the OP to:
http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/html/all.html#redirect

Nothing particular, if you are willing to do so, despite the flow of
wrong answers that people will consume more eagerly since they look
simpler. Most of the regulars have become kind of frustrated with that.


So, you being one of the frustrated regulars, you thereby condone and
excuse the behavior of holding back information, providing only a
cryptic answer which clearly is designed to toy with the OP and all
others interested and then pounce hard on anyone daring to voice an
opinion. Sad.
After all, if people who ask questions here wanted _correct_ answers
and wanted them _fast_, they would have checked the FAQ before asking.
You believe that there are people seeking _incorrect_ answers?
I submitted what I believe to be a correct way to answer, which at the
very least could have been: "Check the FAQ, it is answered there". If
that is too much trouble for any of the regulars, then I suggest that it
may be time for a vacation or to drop the facade of pretending to help.
What's wrong with _your_ reaction is that you keep babbling and
disorienting people - even defending and propagating disinformation
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".


Oh dear, I babble with only two postings and you expound?
What you're not taking into account is that there are people out there
that are not at your lofty level, are striving to get there, or have no
intension of getting there. Some people simply wish to put up a simple
site with some added feature and not a large complex commercial one.
Some people may wish to stay with a client-side solution for whatever
reason and therefore it is unnecessary to try to shove server-side down
their throats. What is a drawback to your eyes may not be as important
to someone else. It is certainly important to point out those drawbacks
and recommendations, but in the end it is their choice and therefore my,
"because it may be the 'right' answer for the OP".

--
Gus
Jul 23 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:37:34 GMT, Arjun Ray <ar**@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:

snip

That's why there is no such thing as a "client-side" solution.


I'm sorry, you are like a man faced with a tiger,who refuses a shot gun to ward
it off on the grounds that the correct solution is to use a Winchester, which
you currently don't have.

You (I take it) are a professional, you must often have to do things in a less
than perfect way, to achieve the ends of your clients in impossible timescales,
or for their reasons not yours. (If not we aren't talking real world here).

So let me rephrase this question for you, as a problem in logic, instead of
wanabee ...

1) You have no access to your servers, except to FTP web pages.

2) You need to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm, without the user being
aware that it happened.

3) Your solution needs to work in late versions of IE and Gecko based browsers -
let's say Firefox

3) How would you do it?

If your answer above is true, you can't do anything, and the the tiger gets you.
What do you actually do? Without theorising, what is your best practical
solution?

Jim
Jul 23 '05 #30

P: n/a
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.net> wrote:
You believe that there are people seeking _incorrect_ answers?


Quite apparently, and you seem to have chosen to serve their needs
(fairly verbosely, and accusing people who give correct answers).

_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.

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

Jul 23 '05 #31

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jim Lawton wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:00:44 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.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...
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.
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...

(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.)
Jul 23 '05 #32

P: n/a
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
1) You have no access to your servers, except to FTP web pages.

2) You need to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm, without the user
being aware that it happened.

3) Your solution needs to work in late versions of IE and Gecko based
browsers - let's say Firefox
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

Second, assuming that I do indeed "need" to change the URL, I'd FTP a "web
page" named .htaccess to my server.

Third, if the .htaccess file didn't configure the necessary redirection,
then I'd move to a web host that isn't crippled.
If your answer above is true, you can't do anything, and the the tiger
gets you.


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.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Predictions are difficult, especially about the future." - Casey Stengel
Jul 23 '05 #33

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

Further; the server is under your control,


You are unpleasantly naive.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Jul 23 '05 #34

P: n/a
JRS: In article <33*************@individual.net>, dated Tue, 28 Dec
2004 15:02:52, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Harlan
Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> posted :
(If the user,
in spite of not having said so [see, you're just as happy as anyone to
answer questions the OP hasn't asked], does want a page that stays up for
two seconds before requesting another page, well, that's a bad idea too,
unless the purpose of your web site is to administer a timed test or speed
reading training of some kind. Don't make assumptions about how long a user
will take to read something. Let him click a link to continue when he's
ready to move on.)


The technique is useful if there is a need, as in the example provided,
to change the name of the page containing the material in question (and
that cannot be achieved server-side).

If refresh occurs, the page calling for it does not need to be read.
Two seconds is in this case long enough to note that the link used to
reach the page needs updating - one need only observe the reload. The
words are there for systems that do not implement refresh.

The OP wanted to be redirected. He gave no interval, but I assumed him
to be intelligent enough to see the connection between 'CONTENT="2; ...'
and 'after 2 seconds' as at least probable. And, while the first page
will be displayed, it should occur to him that he could make it visually
blank and displayed for one or fewer seconds.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jul 23 '05 #35

P: n/a
JRS: In article <Pi*******************************@lxplus008.cern. ch>,
dated Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:03:12, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.autho
ring.html, Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physics.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.

ISTM, therefore, that you should, as a UK educationalist, write to the
relevant newsgroup explaining the situation and your reasoning behind
it. You should also write to anyone who you think may have
inappropriately considered such material to have been published on the
Web. I can help by indicating one - I don't know their proper postal
address, but "The Senate, USA" would have been a sufficient description
for the GPO here.
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.
H'mmm - since you have bases, as shown above, not far from the home of
Chambers' and not far from Markgroningen, why did I not think of
consulting you about my "not-really-published" pages z*.htm?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #36

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.net> wrote:

You believe that there are people seeking _incorrect_ answers?

Quite apparently, and you seem to have chosen to serve their needs
(fairly verbosely, and accusing people who give correct answers).


You just don't get the gist of what I said at all (concise enough?).
_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.


That is as much nonsense as any.
_All_ this babbling would have been avoided if proper conduct were
exercised by regulars. 'Do it my way, or hit the highway' is also not a
helpful attitude.
I suggest that you lobby W3C to get META-Refresh deprecated if it is
such pure nonsense, thank you for the parting shot and have a better New
Year.

--
Gus
Jul 23 '05 #37

P: n/a

"Gus Richter" <gu********@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:XL********************@golden.net...

[snip]
I suggest that you lobby W3C to get META-Refresh deprecated if it is
such pure nonsense, thank you for the parting shot and have a better New
Year.


Did you *intend* to demonstrate so keenly that you're approaching this issue
from lack of knowledge? Not only is META-refresh not in any standard, W3C or
otherwise (it can't be deprecated if it wasn't supported in the first
place), but the W3C already condemns it:

" Note. Some user agents support the use of META to refresh the current page
after a specified number of seconds, with the option of replacing it by a
different URI. Authors should not use this technique to forward users to
different pages, as this makes the page inaccessible to some users. Instead,
automatic page forwarding should be done using server-side redirects."

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/stru...html#edef-META

It's not only bad practice, it's *officially* bad practice.

Jul 23 '05 #38

P: n/a
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.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
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."
Jul 23 '05 #39

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:57:17 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Jim Lawton <uc**@use.your.initiative> wrote:
1) You have no access to your servers, except to FTP web pages.

2) You need to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm, without the user
being aware that it happened.

3) Your solution needs to work in late versions of IE and Gecko based
browsers - let's say Firefox
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


Premise (2) You *need* to redirect requests from a.htm to b.htm, without the
user being aware that it happened.

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

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.

If your answer above is true, you can't do anything, and the the tiger
gets you.


So you failed on all counts really.
You failed entirely to understand that you weren't getting to change the
question, that's why it was like a tiger.
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.

So you're dead meat.

In this story anyway. :-)

Jim


Jul 23 '05 #40

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Darin McGrew wrote:
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.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.
Jul 23 '05 #41

P: n/a
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****@stanfordalumni.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
Jul 23 '05 #42

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:58:13 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <Pi*******************************@lxplus008.cern. ch>,
dated Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:03:12, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.autho
ring.html, Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physics.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
Jul 23 '05 #43

P: n/a
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.
Jul 23 '05 #44

P: n/a
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****@stanfordalumni.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."
Jul 23 '05 #45

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:35:38 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
JRS: In article <ab********************************@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:09:17, seen in news:comp.infosystems.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
Jul 23 '05 #46

P: n/a
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.
Jul 23 '05 #47

P: n/a
JRS: In article <Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31>, dated
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:29:35, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.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.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #48

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton <sp**@merlyn.demon.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

Jul 23 '05 #49

P: n/a
JRS: In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk
, dated Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:04:36, seen in news:comp.infosystems.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.infosystems.www.authoring.h
tml, Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physics.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.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 23 '05 #50

52 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.