Brion Vibber wrote:
Timwi wrote:
It just makes it a lot harder to deal with such pages: if you HTTP-redirect straight to the target page you're missing the link back to the redirect page. (And that is *crucial* for editing work and vandalism cleanup. It is non-negotiable.)
I feel I should point out an implicit fallacy in this. It is non-negotiable that we need a link to the redirect page. It is *not* non-negotiable that we can't return a 301 HTTP redirection.
The only fallacy is yours, you invented some claim that I said 301s can't be used.
Please stop getting so worked up over stuff, Brion. I didn't "invent" any "claim"; I pointed out a fallacy that people may make when reading your message, not necessarily a fallacy you made.
if you had read my message you'd have seen
One of your most annoying habits is to allege that people didn't read your messages. I did, and I understood your point. I'm afraid you're the one that didn't understand mine - but maybe I wasn't quite clear enough, so I'll try to clarify:
my point was using a 301 would require sending additional parameters
No, it wouldn't. _My_ point was that if we placed a link to the page you came from _somewhere else_ than a "redirected from" line (e.g. a list of "pages that redirect to here" on the Edit page), you would *not* need to send additional parameters. You could get back to the page a different way than you do currently.
Of course, there's also someone else's suggestion of using the session variables to remember where you came from and still display a "redirected from" line. As far as I can see, you haven't replied to that idea.
Timwi