On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Might not 302 be better in that it indicates the redirect will always be there, though the target might move in the future? Where 301 suggests that the client "ought to automatically re-link references", 302 suggests "client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future request".
Although 302 indicates temporary move and 301 indicates permanent move, since the Main_page could be renamed, 302 might be more fitting anyway...
The Main Page *could* be renamed. Wikipedia *could* also move to www.thebestencyclopediaever.net. 301 isn't an iron-clad guarantee, it's a hint. 302 should be used for things that will definitely or at least plausibly change in the future, not things that hypothetically maybe could change if people really felt like it for some reason, because the latter describes everything on the Internet.
In particular, if the target of a 301 redirect moves, that's perfectly fine as long as the previous target redirects to the new target. Which will happen, so what's the problem?