Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for version 2.0?

I mean, I've written some docs a while ago incluiding links to D (where there were no D 2.0), so I used, for example, http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html as a link for D 1.0.

Now I want to update it and I have to put: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html

for 1.0 and:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

But I guess that if there is a D 3.0 in the future, the D 2.0 website will be moved to http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/ and the version 3.0 will be available in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/, so I have to go fix all the URLs again.

So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version specification/changelog by using the URL scheme: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/

and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version (as
usual).

This could be easily done with rewrite rules.

TIA.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somos testigos de Jaimito, venimos a traer la salvación, el mundo va a
desaparecer, somos testigos de Jaimito!". Nos enyoguizamos... Así que
"somos testigos"? Te dejo el culo hecho un vino, y la conch'itumá, y la
conch'itumá!
	-- Sidharta Kiwi

Khm... I do not know about this...

The system is pretty much straightforward from my perspective - it uses what is common in all version control systems, where the most recent version (the one in-development) is in he trunk (/), while other versions are in tags/branches (/1.0)

Secondly, there is no stable D 2.0 yet, so it simply does not belong to "/2.0".

Dejan Lekic, el  4 de diciembre a las 00:31 me escribiste:
> Khm... I do not know about this...
> 
> The system is pretty much straightforward from my perspective - it uses what is common in all version control systems, where the most recent version (the one in-development) is in he trunk (/), while other versions are in tags/branches (/1.0)

Website != program, and particulary, website != program using svn (because is the only VCS that I know, that, by convention, use that name scheme).

In websites you want clean, stable URIs, so you don't have problems like
the ones I presented and you don't end up with broken links, or worst,
"hijacked" links (links that should point to D 2.0 specs that
suddenly points to 3.0"). There are many other reasons for stable URIs,
you can read about them here:
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
(start reading at "Why should I care?" if you get bored at the begining,
the "latest" case is mentioned in "So what should I do? Designing URIs" =)

And anyways, what I am proposing don't interfere at all with your proposed svn-ish scheme, is just like you have a 2.0 branch that stays in sync with the trunk if you whish. You loose nothing, you win *a lot*.

> Secondly, there is no stable D 2.0 yet, so it simply does not belong to "/2.0".

Stable or not, D 2.0 releases are called 2.0, the website mention 2.0 version. If D 2.0 is not 2.0 I think it's not a wise choice to name it 2.0 =)

PS: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ claims to be HTML 4.01 strict but it
    doesn't validate :S
    You can see the errors here:
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalmars.com%2Fd%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVESTI ENLOQUECIO E INTENTO ASESINAR A SU PAREJA
ESTABA ARMADO CON PISTOLA DE GRUESO CALIBRE
	-- Crónica TV

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:37:58 -0300
Leandro Lucarella <llucax@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for version 2.0?

No. :(

> So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version specification/changelog by using the URL scheme: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/
> 
> and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version (as
> usual).

I've already pointed it out before - good time to it again, since nothing has changed: I don't see a reason why the experimental version of D is on the frontpage. This makes no sense at all! Please change this, Walter.

-- 
Alexander Panek <alexander.panek@brainsware.org>

== Quote from Alexander Panek (alexander.panek@brainsware.org)'s article
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:37:58 -0300
> Leandro Lucarella <llucax@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for version 2.0?
>
> No. :(
>
> > So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version specification/changelog by using the URL scheme: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/
> >
> > and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version
> > (as usual).
> I've already pointed it out before - good time to it again, since nothing has changed: I don't see a reason why the experimental version of D is on the frontpage. This makes no sense at all! Please change this, Walter.

I still think it's a no-brainer to have the D 1.x spec be the "default" specification until D 2.x is called "stable" (an event which is probably still many months away). At the very minimum, the D 2.x spec should be marked as "draft" or "experimental" or something like that.

I don't know how hard it would be for Walter to change the links to make D 1.x
default, but I wouldn't guess that it would be that hard. I'd be nice if he'd at
least reply to this thread or the last one
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=60812
to let us know why we're wrong. I think that a good number of us are in agreement
on this issue (even though D isn't a democracy).

jcc7, el  5 de diciembre a las 17:26 me escribiste:
> == Quote from Alexander Panek (alexander.panek@brainsware.org)'s article
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:37:58 -0300
> > Leandro Lucarella <llucax@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is there any chance D website get a consistent URL scheme for version 2.0?
> >
> > No. :(
> >
> > > So, it would be great if I can access to any fixed D version specification/changelog by using the URL scheme: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[version]/
> > >
> > > and leaving http://www.digitalmars.com/d/ for the latest version
> > > (as usual).
> > I've already pointed it out before - good time to it again, since nothing has changed: I don't see a reason why the experimental version of D is on the frontpage. This makes no sense at all! Please change this, Walter.
> 
> I still think it's a no-brainer to have the D 1.x spec be the "default" specification until D 2.x is called "stable" (an event which is probably still many months away). At the very minimum, the D 2.x spec should be marked as "draft" or "experimental" or something like that.

Agree!

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lo último que hay que pensar es que se desalinea la memoria
Hay que priorizar como causa la idiotez propia
Ya lo tengo asumido
	-- Pablete, filósofo contemporáneo desconocido

jcc7 wrote:
> I don't know how hard it would be for Walter to change the links to make D 1.x
> default, but I wouldn't guess that it would be that hard. I'd be nice if he'd at
> least reply to this thread or the last one
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=60812
> to let us know why we're wrong. I think that a good number of us are in agreement
> on this issue (even though D isn't a democracy).

I doubt it would be hard at all (if nothing else, just stick a rewrite rule in the server config & there you go), but I can see a possible reason why 2.0 is the main page: new users will most likely adopt whatever's on the main page or grab the "latest version" that's not clearly marked alpha/experimental. Although 2.0 _is_ alpha/experimental, Walter could want to increase adoption of 2.0 by new D users rather than be forced to support a legacy product, so in this sense, encouraging new users to give 2.0 a try is a solid decision.

I disagree with this reasoning, as I think (if nothing else) it gives new users the impression that D is not stable and breaking changes are often introduced, which is not true at all of the (fully capable) 1.x branch.