44073 - [mo-arch] m.o/oji is very outdated and should be archived

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect, P3)

Description

[moshev]

The above mentioned URL is highly outdated. Although it was updated
last time in May 2000, it still has some very old info:

<quote>
available at the same time ___5.0___ is Released. 
      What does this mean for end-users? Several things: 
           Applets and LiveConnect running in Mozilla, 
           a choice of Java virtual machines in ___Communicator 5.0____, 
           backward compatibility with previous Communicator Releases, 
           a chance to migrate to JVMs supporting Java ___1.2___ and
future 	            versions. 
</qoute>

It still refers to Communicator 5.0 and JVM 1.2, although on May 2000 it was
already known that Communicator 5.0 will never be released and JVM 1.2 will
never work with Mozilla.

Comment 1

[Mitchell Baker]

Reassigning to Dawn, our webmaster.

Comment 2

[James Cox]

-> taking QA contact so I don't need to watch Dawn anymore. ;)

Comment 3

[Owen Marshall (Not reading bugmail)]

-->[e-mail]

Comment 4

[Owen Marshall (Not reading bugmail)]

*bugspam*

Comment 5

[Anne (:annevk)]

There are a lot of pages that are outdated.

fantasai, maybe such files should get some kind of warning message right under
the H1?

# <p class=important note">This page is no longer
#  maintained but still online for historical reasons.

Although I wonder if we want to have such a message for every outdated file,
things like /fear.html should probably not have it. Maybe only project pages.

Comment 6

[Daniel Wang]

> There are a lot of pages that are outdated.
> fantasai, maybe such files should get some kind of warning message right
> under the H1?

This would be unnecessary. Pages will get outdated despite our best effort. It's
unwise to catagorize what pages are outdated and what are very outdated, and
it's unwise to try to keep everything up-to-date. A better solution (one which
I've been advocating) is make clear the publishing date, date of the last major
revision, and what version of software the doc is applicable to. I trust the
reader can determine on his/her own how updated a document is.

In the case of OJI, "11 April 2001" makes it pretty clear that the page is very
outdated.

Comment 7

[Daniel Wang]

Attachment: patch

update end-user info only

Comment 8

[Anne (:annevk)]

Comment on attachment 159163 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

>+read the <a href="/releases">release notes</a> of your Mozilla software
>+release.</p>

That should be a relative link. Like: './../releases/' or '../releases/'.
Please don't omit the trailing slash. The P closing-tag can be omitted as well
as it often causes validation errors after people edit the page without review.

>-
> </dl>

You want to remove that DL closing-tag as well.

Comment 9

[Erik Fabert]

The page also has (at least) two broken links: Under "OJI and JavaScript
Security", the links to "OJI Security Overview" and "OJI Security Interfaces"
give a 404 error. Are these documents still available?

Comment 10

[Kurt Weinschenker]

This page is still outdated; perhaps someone might revise it at some point?

Comment 11

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

The best solution for this page is to archive it, moving over any relevant content.

sheppy, do you see anything here worth salvaging?

Comment 12

[Eric Shepherd [:sheppy]]

I don't think there's anything worth salvaging; archive it and if anyone realizes later that something's missing that we need, we'll go get it.

Comment 13

[Samuel Sidler (old account; do not CC)]

Alright then. Taking this bug. I'll archive when we have the archive server setup.

Comment 14

[David Boswell]

The OJI files have now been archived.