Lets argue over redirect methods

Printable View

10-01-2001, 10:55 AM
Skeelo

Lets argue over redirect methods

I just got in a really heated discussion about redirect methods. There is the standard META refresh method (<meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="0; url=http://www.page.com"> ) and the JS method (
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" onload="location.href='http://www.page.com'">.

I am all for the JS method. It is faster, you can see this by the two test files I have made:

http://skeedo.com/meta1.htm
http://skeedo.com/jstest.htm

Not only does the JS one seem to load faster, but it also seems to be caching and the meta one does not. Now arguments against the JS method are that it isn't as supported as meta, but that's why you include a link on the redirect page in case the redirect fails or you have JS disabled. I would really like to hear other thoughts on this!

Btw, interesting note. Alex Ross or whoever developed this site is using BOTH the JS and META redirect methods to redirect Sharkyforums.com to ultimatebb.cgi. Does seem however the JS one is being done first.

------------------
html.dataraq.com
10-01-2001, 10:58 AM
Skeelo

Weird, the link to the JS file doesn't seem to use cached copy if you click the link, but it will if you put it into address bar yourself.

------------------
html.dataraq.com
10-01-2001, 01:37 PM
Grizzly

I think it's a silly argument myself. They both get the job done, and the user will never have any idea which actually took place.

I've always stuck with the META tag myself....why you ask? No idea, just used it first, and I've never seen a reason to change. They both work fine.

The *real* preferred method is by doing it on the Server Side, rather than client side. Every Server-Side language offers a method for redircting a client.
10-01-2001, 03:25 PM
Skeelo

I just ask because of other ego heads trying to prove that I'm in idiot, you know the "SHUT UP YOU ARE STUPID MY WAY IS BEST" kind of crap. I gotta get off irc.

------------------
html.dataraq.com