OT: Bezeqint made me "poof... he's gone"

[Dotan Cohen]

>> I could make a similar argument about some UAs not handling HTML 4.1
>> well, do you give them a choice of HTML 1.0 for your website?
>
> Well, these are very rare nowadays and need not be catered for. Most modern
> browsers can handle my XHTML 1.1 just fine, and I haven't heard any complaints
> yet. On the other hand, feed aggregators, handlers, and manglers that best use
> either RSS or Atom are pretty common.
>

Only for desktops. I have a non-tech site that now gets 8% of it's
users on mobile devices! Other non-tech sites regularly see 5%.

> Atom has many advantages over RSS. See for example:
> http://blog.unto.net/work/on-rss-and-atom/ . And be careful with what you wish
> for.
>

Then serve Atom! Get rid of the RSS!


>> > I know many sites and blog services that publicse <link tags to both RSS
>> > and Atom.
>>
>> And each one confuses users.
>
> That's what you think. I am not convinced.
>

I won't try to convince you. I've made my point, but the site is yours
and I respect that.


>> That's basa. Did you ask one of the Danys from Taub to reinstate the
>> site for a a year?
>>
>
> No, I didn't. I could try.
>

I could run down there this week if you want. My Orange number is
054-788-1700. Tuesday is good for me.

>> I personally don't download sites to read, but I tried to present a
>> valid use case.
>>
> Well, in that case, people can use a mirroring tool on
> http://www.shlomifish.org/ just fine. Everything they want is under there. If
> they point it at sf.org, they'll either get a single page, or alternatively
> follow the link to http://www.shlomifish.org/ which is what I want to happen.
> Either way, it is handled properly.
>

Most tools don't cross subdomains, from what I understand. But I don't
use them, so I could be wrong.


>> I mentioned that because it appeared to me that you implied that the
>> reason for your decision is to prevent bots from crawling the site.
>>
> So?
>

So bots are just as important as users.

>> The point being that your approach does nothing to stop malicious bots.
>>
> So what do I care about those malicious bots? There's nothing of relevance on
> sf.org . They can go to every page they want there, and they won't find
> anything.
>

Very good. I mistakenly thought that the reason for your policies is
that you were trying to block the bots. My misinterpretation, sorry.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il