Comments on: Classic mismatch http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881 I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:23:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11203 CGHill Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:15:07 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11203 That was my first choice, but eventually I opted for #3, otherwise known as C. That was my first choice, but eventually I opted for #3, otherwise known as C.

]]> By: Old Grouch http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11196 Old Grouch Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:06:03 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11196 <em>If you’ve been here a while, you already know which option I took.</em> (d) None of the above? If you’ve been here a while, you already know which option I took.

(d) None of the above?

]]> By: McGehee http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11184 McGehee Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:20:34 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11184 <blockquote><i>I don’t run my own server, but I do have backup copies of all the static pages, just in case.</i></blockquote>Ditto here. I wonder if there's a correlation between how long someone's been managing their own website, and their tendency to keep editable copies of static pages on their own machine?

I don’t run my own server, but I do have backup copies of all the static pages, just in case.

Ditto here. I wonder if there’s a correlation between how long someone’s been managing their own website, and their tendency to keep editable copies of static pages on their own machine?

]]> By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11182 CGHill Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:19:09 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11182 I don't run my own server, but I do have backup copies of all the static pages, just in case. <a href="http://www.funduc.com/search_replace.htm" rel="nofollow">Funduc's Search and Replace</a> did the dirty editing work for me: 11,560 files processed in about two minutes. Unfortunately, FTP was a two-hour chore, mostly because I had to send 100-200 at a time to avoid messing with the Web server's little brain. I don’t run my own server, but I do have backup copies of all the static pages, just in case.

Funduc’s Search and Replace did the dirty editing work for me: 11,560 files processed in about two minutes. Unfortunately, FTP was a two-hour chore, mostly because I had to send 100-200 at a time to avoid messing with the Web server’s little brain.

]]> By: robohara http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11181 robohara Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:43:05 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11181 Actually, editing 12,000 isn't that bad these days. I use a command line utility called GSAR (Global Search and Replace) for such projects. I think it was adapted from a *nix command, but I use it in Windows/DOS. Of course the files have to be stored locally, which would mean transferring 12,000 down, editing them, and transferring them back. That's one of the advantages of running your own webserver locally. (Not trying to sound elitist; believe me, there are plenty of disadvantages as well.) Actually, editing 12,000 isn’t that bad these days. I use a command line utility called GSAR (Global Search and Replace) for such projects. I think it was adapted from a *nix command, but I use it in Windows/DOS. Of course the files have to be stored locally, which would mean transferring 12,000 down, editing them, and transferring them back. That’s one of the advantages of running your own webserver locally. (Not trying to sound elitist; believe me, there are plenty of disadvantages as well.)

]]> By: McGehee http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11172 McGehee Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:25:17 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11172 Gaahhhh! Not slash<i>dot</i> -- dot<i>slash!</i> <a href="./"> I shoulda checked my code before I posted. Gaahhhh! Not slashdot — dotslash!

<a href=”./”>

I shoulda checked my code before I posted.

]]> By: McGehee http://www.dustbury.com/archives/5881/comment-page-1#comment-11171 McGehee Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:23:50 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=5881#comment-11171 That's why I try to avoid using page identifiers anymore when pointing to the default file in a directory. Even in relational links on static pages, I use a slashdot link (<a href="/.">) rather than naming "index.html" or whatever variant may be in place. It works fine on the web, though navigating among local copies in my browser I get a folder list instead of the desired document. I live with it. That’s why I try to avoid using page identifiers anymore when pointing to the default file in a directory. Even in relational links on static pages, I use a slashdot link (<a href=”/.”>) rather than naming “index.html” or whatever variant may be in place.

It works fine on the web, though navigating among local copies in my browser I get a folder list instead of the desired document. I live with it.

]]>