updating the HTTP metadata provider pages

[Rod Widdowson]

> In any case, I'm guessing you would rather preserve the history, right?

I'm not going to speak for the project on this, so this is an entirely personal opinion.

If this was code I would vote for history every time.  I use code revision history if not every day of my life at least twice a week.  We spent a great deal of effort when we moved to git (from SVN, from CVS) in preserving history - and there is some really interesting history back there (including IIRC snapshots of InCommon metadata from 10 years ago)

For the wiki, I don't use history much.  My initial question was whether you had changed anything - you said "no" and that was enough for me.  I care more about what changes on a daily basis (and yes I look at every single change that is made across our wiki space) rather than "what was this changed from 6 months ago".  Who cares?  It's not like I'm chasing up when a bug was introduced.  And it’s a wiki.

Added to this I have been spending a significant amount of time recently pulling together the SPV3 documentation and that has involved a great deal of cut and paste.

So I'm fine with knowing that the new page was a cut and paste done by someone I know.  If you really wanted to go the full distance you could have started with a tombstone pointing to the old page in case someone cares to chase backwards.

But, to reemphasise that is a personal position.  The rest of the devs may have other ideas.

R