[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev Problem with parameters sent in Lynx

From: Peter Rasmussen
Subject: Re: lynx-dev Problem with parameters sent in Lynx
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 01:47:36 +0100

On Sun Dec 29 22:58:52 2002 David Woolley <address@hidden> wrote:
>> As I understand it, using Refresh 0 is bad,
>That's because it is used to simulate a redirect when there is a perfectly
>good way of doing this which is blessed by the standards and can let the 
>browser know that it should update bookmarks (even if it doesn't).  Refresh,
>although mentioned in the HTML specification is not specified there, and
>is, as far as I know, not specified in any other non-proprietory specification.
>>                                             but I suppose using 1 and above
>You are still abusing it for a redirect, and even when using it for its 
>intended purpose of producing a slide show, in which case 1 second is too
>short (it's actually too short to allow some people to get past it with
>the back button).  However, for anyone not fluent in a language or not reading
>visually, any auto-advance time delay suitable for fluent visual users is
>likely to be a problem.
>Lynx is often used by blind users without a rich employer to pay for
I don't know what JAWS is.

>> instead of 0 isn't bad, so at least for those I would be happy if Lynx would
>> automatically redirect. Or is that a problem for some reason?
>> The only thing I use it for is, if I want an easy way to tell a browser not 
>> to
>> use this or that static file, but instead some other file, that is very 
>> often a
>> dynamically generated file. And very often it is mostly because I like to 
>> start
>If you can generate dynamic content, you are almost certainly able to configure
>the server to generate proper redirects; there is a slight excuse for this
>abuse of Refresh for people with cheap web space where they cannot control
>meta data, but you can control meta data with dynamic content, so that 
>restriction shouldn't apply.
OK, I looked into the more proper way to do server side redirect with the Apache
web server, which is what I use.

Enable the server to accept using .htaccess in the directory the redirect should
occur and write something like:

redirect /New/dvd_db/index.html

in instead of this index.html file, which may now disappear:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="0; URL=login_screen.cgi">

However, what do I do if a poor guy wants to do something that his ISP won't
let him, eg. CGI, so he would like to use my site for it? He is only able to
put a static file there, eg. index.htm with this content:


Or what?

So if someone doesn't have full control of a site, or enough control to do what
they want, they have to hack (me included) and then it is a pain if the browser
in order to be correct doesn't want to play.

Or please tell me I am wrong and that there isn't any situation where the Lynx
policy isn't wrong?

At least I learned something and thank you for that, but I am not yet convinced
that you are right all the way with not accepting the W3C non-recommended hack 


; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]