www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - URL consistency for D 2.0 website.

reply Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for version 2.0?

I mean, I've written some docs a while ago incluiding links to D (where
there were no D 2.0), so I used, for example,
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html as a link for D 1.0.

Now I want to update it and I have to put:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html

for 1.0 and:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

But I guess that if there is a D 3.0 in the future, the D 2.0 website will
be moved to http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/ and the version 3.0 will be
available in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/, so I have to go fix all the
URLs again.

So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version
specification/changelog by using the URL scheme:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/

and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version (as
usual).

This could be easily done with rewrite rules.

TIA.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somos testigos de Jaimito, venimos a traer la salvación, el mundo va a
desaparecer, somos testigos de Jaimito!". Nos enyoguizamos... Así que
"somos testigos"? Te dejo el culo hecho un vino, y la conch'itumá, y la
conch'itumá!
	-- Sidharta Kiwi
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent reply Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
Khm... I do not know about this...

The system is pretty much straightforward from my perspective - it uses 
what is common in all version control systems, where the most recent 
version (the one in-development) is in he trunk (/), while other 
versions are in tags/branches (/1.0)

Secondly, there is no stable D 2.0 yet, so it simply does not belong to 
"/2.0".
Dec 03 2007
parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Dejan Lekic, el  4 de diciembre a las 00:31 me escribiste:
 Khm... I do not know about this...
 
 The system is pretty much straightforward from my perspective - it uses what
is common in all version control systems, where the most recent version (the
one 
 in-development) is in he trunk (/), while other versions are in tags/branches
(/1.0)

Website != program, and particulary, website != program using svn (because is the only VCS that I know, that, by convention, use that name scheme). In websites you want clean, stable URIs, so you don't have problems like the ones I presented and you don't end up with broken links, or worst, "hijacked" links (links that should point to D 2.0 specs that suddenly points to 3.0"). There are many other reasons for stable URIs, you can read about them here: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI (start reading at "Why should I care?" if you get bored at the begining, the "latest" case is mentioned in "So what should I do? Designing URIs" =) And anyways, what I am proposing don't interfere at all with your proposed svn-ish scheme, is just like you have a 2.0 branch that stays in sync with the trunk if you whish. You loose nothing, you win *a lot*.
 Secondly, there is no stable D 2.0 yet, so it simply does not belong to "/2.0".

Stable or not, D 2.0 releases are called 2.0, the website mention 2.0 version. If D 2.0 is not 2.0 I think it's not a wise choice to name it 2.0 =) PS: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ claims to be HTML 4.01 strict but it doesn't validate :S You can see the errors here: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalmars.com%2Fd%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVESTI ENLOQUECIO E INTENTO ASESINAR A SU PAREJA ESTABA ARMADO CON PISTOLA DE GRUESO CALIBRE -- Crónica TV
Dec 03 2007
prev sibling parent reply Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org> writes:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:37:58 -0300
Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> wrote:

 Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for version
 2.0?

No. :(
 So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version
 specification/changelog by using the URL scheme:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/
 
 and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version (as
 usual).

I've already pointed it out before - good time to it again, since nothing has changed: I don't see a reason why the experimental version of D is on the frontpage. This makes no sense at all! Please change this, Walter. -- Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org>
Dec 04 2007
parent reply jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Alexander Panek (alexander.panek brainsware.org)'s article
 On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:37:58 -0300
 Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> wrote:
 Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for
 version 2.0?

No. :(
 So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version
 specification/changelog by using the URL scheme:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/

 and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version
 (as usual).

nothing has changed: I don't see a reason why the experimental version of D is on the frontpage. This makes no sense at all! Please change this, Walter.

I still think it's a no-brainer to have the D 1.x spec be the "default" specification until D 2.x is called "stable" (an event which is probably still many months away). At the very minimum, the D 2.x spec should be marked as "draft" or "experimental" or something like that. I don't know how hard it would be for Walter to change the links to make D 1.x default, but I wouldn't guess that it would be that hard. I'd be nice if he'd at least reply to this thread or the last one http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=60812 to let us know why we're wrong. I think that a good number of us are in agreement on this issue (even though D isn't a democracy).
Dec 05 2007
next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
jcc7, el  5 de diciembre a las 17:26 me escribiste:
 == Quote from Alexander Panek (alexander.panek brainsware.org)'s article
 On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:37:58 -0300
 Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> wrote:
 Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for
 version 2.0?

No. :(
 So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version
 specification/changelog by using the URL scheme:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/

 and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version
 (as usual).

nothing has changed: I don't see a reason why the experimental version of D is on the frontpage. This makes no sense at all! Please change this, Walter.

I still think it's a no-brainer to have the D 1.x spec be the "default" specification until D 2.x is called "stable" (an event which is probably still many months away). At the very minimum, the D 2.x spec should be marked as "draft" or "experimental" or something like that.

Agree! -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lo último que hay que pensar es que se desalinea la memoria Hay que priorizar como causa la idiotez propia Ya lo tengo asumido -- Pablete, filósofo contemporáneo desconocido
Dec 05 2007
prev sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
jcc7 wrote:
 I don't know how hard it would be for Walter to change the links to make D 1.x
 default, but I wouldn't guess that it would be that hard. I'd be nice if he'd
at
 least reply to this thread or the last one
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=60812
 to let us know why we're wrong. I think that a good number of us are in
agreement
 on this issue (even though D isn't a democracy).

I doubt it would be hard at all (if nothing else, just stick a rewrite rule in the server config & there you go), but I can see a possible reason why 2.0 is the main page: new users will most likely adopt whatever's on the main page or grab the "latest version" that's not clearly marked alpha/experimental. Although 2.0 _is_ alpha/experimental, Walter could want to increase adoption of 2.0 by new D users rather than be forced to support a legacy product, so in this sense, encouraging new users to give 2.0 a try is a solid decision. I disagree with this reasoning, as I think (if nothing else) it gives new users the impression that D is not stable and breaking changes are often introduced, which is not true at all of the (fully capable) 1.x branch.
Dec 05 2007