The idea of hard coding a URI, like is done for robots.txt is a bad idea. Let's not continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. -- http://bitworkin

The idea of hard coding a URI, like is done for robots.txt is a bad idea. Let's not continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. -- http://bitworking.org/news/No_Fishing http://bitworking.org/news/No_Fishing Fair comment here[1] about the specific case of robots.txt, but lets not do this kind of thing gratuitously. Maybe what we need instead is the X-BOFH header[2]: X-BOFH: http://www.xxxxx.de/bofh/xxxxxx.html The actual URL it points to has been obscured to protect the guilty, and a local mirror[3] provided in its stead. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639337 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639337 [2] http://www.nextthing.org/archives/2005/08/07/fun-with-http-headers http://www.nextthing.org/archives/2005/08/07/fun-with-http-h... [3] http://www.nextthing.org/blog/cache/bofh_edited.html http://www.nextthing.org/blog/cache/bofh_edited.html