Reorg of D site

[Stewart Gordon]

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown at simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:fn891s$1ncq$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Yes, a 301 should work like that (as would 302.)

<snip top of upside-down reply>

Yes, HTTP redirection using a status code in the 300s is the best way.  But 
you should use the right code!

In this instance, the correct code would indeed be 301 (moved permanently). 
302 (found) would probably be the right one for redirecting the advertised 
URL of a site to the URL where it's actually hosted, but it seems a number 
of redirection providers wrongly use 301.  (That said, I can't seem to make 
out by a quick read the difference between 302 and 307.)

The trouble is that, depending on the hosting provider and server software, 
one may or may not have the means of setting up HTTP redirection.  Meta 
refresh thus provides an alternative means.  However, one should not use 
_only_ meta refresh!  Some browsers provide a means of disabling it.  This 
is yet another reason (besides search engines) that you should always have a 
plain HTML link as a fallback.

view-source:http://www.lrca.org.uk/
or, if this doesn't work for you
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.lrca.org.uk/&ss=1

demonstrates a three-level approach to redirection: meta refresh, JavaScript 
and finally a link on the page.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail address is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies 
on the 'group where everybody may benefit.