Maybe so-- we were just concerned about references to it and thought it
better to have only one redirect instead of two. When you look at the
page it's clear that it covers both-- it's just a filename after
all. But we'll take that under consideration.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, [iso-8859-1] Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> Should the official address not be a little more neutral, and telling?
> I suggest either "langcodes.html" or plainly "codes.html"
> The name "bibcodes" is misleading as it is actually both bibcodes and termcodes.
> And it could be seen as the libray codes are prevailing, and termcodes
> are left behind, which is not the case, AFAIK.
> Kind regards
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 02:50:00PM -0500, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> > We've now done a redirect. So the link will redirect you to bibcodes.html
> > Rebecca
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Martin Duerst wrote:
> > > Good idea. It seems to have happened on
> > > http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/bibcodes.html but not on
> > > http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/termcodes.html.
> > >
> > > From http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTML-tags.html, I'm
> > > currently linking to the later, should I change that?
> > >
> > > Regards, Martin.
> > >