Re: cdimage pages in wml
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:47:42PM +0100, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > > Okay, I'm taking a look now. Hmmm.. I think there's something wrong, but since
> > > I don't know anything about wml yet, I don't have a clue. Take a look at
> > > http://cdimage.debian.org/~costar/test-cdimage.d.o/
> > > (generated with just 'make').
> >
> > You need WML from testing/unstable... at least 2.0.3 IIRC.
>
> Why do people think everyone is running unstable?! Especially for "production"
> servers like www.d.o or cdimage.d.o this is not a good idea.
You don't need to run unstable, I didn't say that. You only need three
packages. If you need them, they're at /org/www.debian.org/debs/ on klecker,
compiled for potato. Oh, wait, you don't have an account :)
> One problem: cdimage.d.o does not do content negotiation, and even if it did
> I'd refuse to use it[*]. So a reference to just "faq" won't work, it has to be
> "faq.en.html". Is there any wml trick that can automagically add the
> ".<lang>.html" or do I have to hard-code it everywhere?
>
> [*]: It does not work, period. Many browsers have incorrect settings
> _per_default_, up to the point that I believe we're losing many Windows
> converts because they simply can't read our webpages. I don't want to be
> responsible for anything like that.
There's nothing inherently wrong with content negotiation, and the current
implementation works just fine in a majority of cases. In cases where it
doesn't work, it mostly a user-error, and it can be worked around very
easily.
www.debian.org and all of its mirrors have been running Apache(s) with
content negotiation for years now. We get complaints from users who set up
their browsers incorrectly, all the time, and it obviously hasn't stopped
us, and I doubt it will.
The most common problem is when people select en-gb or en-us in Internet
Explorer 5. Heck, it's a Microsoft client, the fact it's working at all with
a non-Microsoft server is a miracle. :>
> > BTW, would you mind if I renamed ch* files to something nicer? It's not
> > really important, but it's easier to handle files that aren't so similarly
> > named.
>
> Well, if you have any good suggestion that increases manageability please
> tell me. And remember that I'm mostly using mc(1) to work on stuff, so the
> names should preferably have less than 16 and absolutely less than 37
> characters (which makes it quite hard to think of good descriptive names
> for ch21211 for example).
For example, "p-ikit" (short for pseudo-image kit). Or something along those
lines. Anything's better than combinations of numbers 1, 2 and 3...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: