The established practice is clearly to use multiple URL: auxiliary
headers.
I went to http://www.faqs.org/faqs and used the "headers only" search
for the word "URL". Bit of a brute force approach, but it worked. There
are over 1400 postings with a URL header.
I counted about 25 with multiple URL headers, and just one using a
comma-delimited single header.
I lost track of the exact count because the list was so long and I was
scanning it manually for the multiples. Commas were easier -- just did
a find in the page.
I excluded multiple identical headers or a URL and X-URL with the same
content (usually one in the real headers and one in the auxiliary
headers, which occurs frequently).
I counted multi-part FAQs as one, since in most cases the same usage
applied to all parts. Had I counted all parts, the counts would have
been about 40 to 10. (The one that uses the comma-delimited style is
the 10-part palmtops/newton FAQ. And it does not start the continuation
lines with whitespace, as would be required for real headers.)
Reasons for multiple URLs are: multiple sites (redundancy), multiple
access methods (usually http and ftp), redundant server in the same
domain.
A few of the URLs point to either rtfm.mit.edu, www.faqs.org or its
synonym www.landfield.com, or www.cis.ohio-state.edu (!). In some cases
these are duplicates.
As far as Kent's scripts on faqs.org, it doesn't seem to matter. The
scripts find anything that looks like a URL in the posting, be it
header, auxiliary header, or text. In all cases that I examined, the
URLs had been properly converted to links.
Edward Reid
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here
*************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved