[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)
From: |
Matias Fonzo |
Subject: |
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions) |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:14:09 -0300 |
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:47:04 +0100
Jean Louis <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:29:52AM -0500, Therese Godefroy via RT
> wrote:
> > > Description", if the intention is to read the full description
> > > from website project.
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > Also, to keep more uniform the links for the project websites, it
> > > would be good if starts with 'www.' for the links that do not
> > > have it.
> >
> > I checked all the links. They all correspond to the URL you
> > actually get. Several of them don't have www. The only one I
> > changed is https://dragora.org -->
> > https://dragora.org/repo.fsl/doc/trunk/www/index.md (but the
> > redirection is automatic anyway). I also changed http to https when
> > https did work.
>
> Please note that there is absolutely no rule by
> standards that a website shall have "www." as
> subdomain name.
>
> Website may respond only with its domain name,
> such as example.com or with any subdomain as
> any.example.com and need not have www at all.
For the most cases out there, you don't want to left the prefix
for 'www' ;-)
> So it is incorrest to say "it would be good if
> links start with 'www'" -- for links which do not
> have eventually www, if they have it alright, but
> one shall have the link that distribution author
> designates, and if it has no www, than no www
> shall be used.
I don't know which sites are supporting the prefix, I was trying to
make a simple suggestion to make it look more "formal".
> It is a host name, and that host name may be
> there, may be not, it may be used as plain domain
> name or with any host name.
>
> So assumption that www exists is incorrect. One
> must ask the website owner which hostname they
> wish to use.
>
> Jean
>
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), (continued)
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Jaromil, 2018/01/19
- [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Therese Godefroy via RT, 2018/01/22
- [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Therese Godefroy via RT, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Jean Louis, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions),
Matias Fonzo <=
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Julie Marchant, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Ivan Zaigralin, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), bill-auger, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Andrew Nesbit, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Jean Louis, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Andrew Nesbit, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Luke Shumaker, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Ivan Zaigralin, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), bill-auger, 2018/01/26