Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

broken link at location /Provider/ShellScript.html #657

Open
spookyahell opened this issue Sep 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

broken link at location /Provider/ShellScript.html #657

spookyahell opened this issue Sep 5, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
content Copy, imagery or other content

Comments

@spookyahell
Copy link

spookyahell commented Sep 5, 2024

Describe the issue
I wonder if anyone else still be browsing ancient/archived pages...
not TOO many people probably.

The link with text "inet daemon to run it" is broken

URL
https://www.w3.org/Provider/ShellScript.html
broken link goes to: http://www.w3.org/Daemon/User/Installation.html

Recommended solution
Hard for me to make any.

Someone should check the resource link because "300 Multiple Choices" should not be happening.
(Broken links for ancient content can of course be expected.) Doesn't mean we (the public) will get access to the referenced document... since it seems to be restricted (or the main subdir where it resides in at least.)

Additional context
Just doing some web/WWW history research

(Yes, I'm aware of the Wayback Machine as an option, but there's no archive of the missing url)

@spookyahell spookyahell added the content Copy, imagery or other content label Sep 5, 2024
@spookyahell
Copy link
Author

spookyahell commented Sep 5, 2024

Yeah there's a lot more broken links of course...

For example VMS version over in https://www.w3.org/Daemon/Status.html

This archived URL might be helpful for people doing this sort of research

Maybe the corresponding link that leads to that original resource could just simply be replaced...
(maybe that suggestion isn't acceptable because perhaps touching the "sanctity" of the old files is not something that is being considered.)

If however the old files are still gonna be touched...
MAYBE I'd suggest removing the "NEW" tag from the status.

1996 technology isn't new anymore.

There was jigsaw after CERN httpd - and then there was apache basically (that's how far I've gotten)

We already got this of course...
Note: Some of this information may be out of date.

So maybe ... can & will be left as is?

@spookyahell
Copy link
Author

spookyahell commented Sep 5, 2024

Is there an official document these days promoting names of server softwares?
"w3c server list" prompts Microsoft AI to generate a list without a warning.
(that's of course an issue of Microsoft's platform... for which I provided feedback with their available tools for that)

Perhaps the list could eventually just be purged entirely... or instead maybe moved to a non-crawled/indexed archive?
(I'm generally not an advocate for purging anything... ever)

@koalie koalie self-assigned this Nov 27, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
content Copy, imagery or other content
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants