Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
Glyn Kennington ha scritto:
Rather than changing the first to be "refresh only, no redirect", could I suggest some kind of choice between the following three?
1: no refresh 2: refreshes allowed, redirects not 3: refreshes + redirects permitted
[...]
that sounds good:
-r only refresh -rr redirect too
I'll get to work on that. I'm not sure if "-rr" breaks certain coding standards, it being neither a "short" (only one character) nor "long" (starting with two dashes) option, but that's not especially important (to me) right now.
but I think that dillo could not complain about refresh because they are HTML-standard compliant and it is the reason because meta-refresh was been invented. So if we would stay on the standards we have to accept it even if we don't like it.
It's dubious whether it's standard HTML, actually. The spec says that the "http-equiv" must be valid HTTP, effectively passing the buck to the HTTP spec. And as the HTTP spec is in a fairly unreadable RFC format, I'm still uncertain about all this... Glyn