Re: Quality problems - AGREE!
Piglet <ee01th@surrey.ac.uk>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 22:21:18 --100
Message-id: <9404142116.aa10697@ainur.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: ee01th@surrey.ac.uk
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Piglet <ee01th@surrey.ac.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Quality problems - AGREE!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1102
> Jacob,
>
> I totally agree; plus, instead of giving a message like you
> sometimes get from a phone company, for example:
>
> "Sorry you must NOT dial a "1" in front of this number..."
> Why not just assume "no 1" and not bother with the message.
Because you need to get the subscribers to stop dialing the 1 so
that at a later date you can use numbers beginning "1" that don't
conflict
>
> In the case of "this xxx relocated to yyy," why not just
> link to "yyy" instead of bothering with the message, or,
> notify with the message and still link them there.
>
again, if people don't have to change it themselves,they won't!
Then if a link became reactivated but with completely different info
it could cause LOTS of confusion and you might not be able to find
the correct link again. And you may think the chances of using the
same url is unlikely? Well, given the nameing conventions I've seen
it's quite likely! (eg. /www/me/1.html /www/me/2.html etc....)
and I suggest, Jacob, if you want to continue listening to
discussion on this, that you start receiving the group