Brion Vibber wrote:
Timwi wrote:
It just
makes it a lot harder to deal with such pages: if you
HTTP-redirect straight to the target page you're missing the link back
to the redirect page. (And that is *crucial* for editing work and
vandalism cleanup. It is non-negotiable.)
I feel I should point out an implicit fallacy in this. It is
non-negotiable that we need a link to the redirect page. It is *not*
non-negotiable that we can't return a 301 HTTP redirection.
The only fallacy is yours, you invented some claim that I said 301s can't be
used.
Please stop getting so worked up over stuff, Brion. I didn't "invent"
any "claim"; I pointed out a fallacy that people may make when reading
your message, not necessarily a fallacy you made.
if you had read my message you'd have seen
One of your most annoying habits is to allege that people didn't read
your messages. I did, and I understood your point. I'm afraid you're the
one that didn't understand mine - but maybe I wasn't quite clear enough,
so I'll try to clarify:
my point was using a 301 would require sending
additional parameters
No, it wouldn't. _My_ point was that if we placed a link to the page you
came from _somewhere else_ than a "redirected from" line (e.g. a list of
"pages that redirect to here" on the Edit page), you would *not* need to
send additional parameters. You could get back to the page a different
way than you do currently.
Of course, there's also someone else's suggestion of using the session
variables to remember where you came from and still display a
"redirected from" line. As far as I can see, you haven't replied to that
idea.
Timwi