Folks, please keep this discussion on docs@, too. * Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Tim Bannister wrote: > > On 26 Feb 2012, at 10:34, Graham Leggett wrote: > >> On 26 Feb 2012, at 9:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >>> Ok folks, it's been a "few years"... over 10, in fact, that 1.3 has > >>> been dead. > >>> > >>> Doesn't it seem overtime to take down 1.3 docs from the site, > >>> altogether? > >> > >> I find that from time to time, v1.3 documentation comes up in Google > >> searches, which probably confuses users who don't know what they're > >> looking at. > > > > There are ways to leave it there but persuade crawlers not to index it. > > Maybe even serve it with 410 status and some JavaScript to point out > > that the page is deprecated. > > > > I think the first one is worthwhile and the second one is not worth the > > extra effort. > > We're already using the > > <link rel="canonical" href="http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/"/> > > to tell Google not to index the pages, although that's not (yet) on all > of the 1.3 doc pages - Unfortunately that's something of a manual process > due to the fact that the 1.3 docs are in HTML, not generated, and that > not every page in the 1.3 docs has an exact corollary in the /current/ > docs. > > There's certainly more we can do to purge it from search engines without > making it completely unavailable. > > I'm somewhat torn on whether we want it to go away entirely - I tend to > think that what Nick suggests - removing it but making it available as a > tarball - satisfies those folks who are still running 1.3 for some reason > that they consider legitimate. > > So, +1 to removing the /docs/1.3/ directory, and also to tarring it up > and making it downloadable from a errordocument that loads for /docs/1.3/ > requests. A .htaccess file with the content negotiation stuff would also > be a friendly thing to include in that, as Nick suggests. > > Prior to doing that, there are some changes that we need to make the > pointers in them to the current docs actually go the right place. Some of > the pages reference 2.2 as the current version, and also /current/ still > points to 2.2. So, give us a moment to resolve those two issues … > > -- > Rich Bowen > rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen > rbo...@apache.org -- print "Just Another Perl Hacker"; # André Malo, <http://pub.perlig.de/> #
