Talk:Meta refresh

Old comments
I pasted exactly that code in my page, and it didn't work. I had to delete the first " mark before the page name, and then it worked. Am I alone in this?
 * No, that's a typo. I'm correcting it now.

I added much more information on redirects and refreshs into URL_redirection. Maybe we can replace this page by a link to the lolsponding section there? Yaakov Belch 15:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Actually, I think it would be better as it stands as a separate article, so oppose. m.e. 11:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed comedy
I believe this article would be greatly enhanced by directly embedding an actual meta refresh into the entry itself. Say, 2 seconds. Refresh...refresh...refresh... ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.239.80 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First get the Recursion or Self-reference page to link to itself in their See Also section :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.92.247 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Standardize
The code examples should obey XHTML 1.0+ standard, meaning the tags should be (remain) closed at the end. Also, the code should be displayed properly, i.e. double-quotes instead of single quotes, and no useless space before the closing slash. Please state any objections here. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a couple.
 * Why XHTML? Meta refresh is an archaic, deprecated element that belongs to the pre-"Web 2.0" era. HTML, conversely, is still valid: look at Youtube's page source if you don't believe me.
 * Space before the closing slash is required to ensure correct rendering in all browsers: view Wikipedia's page source if you don't believe me. Most browsers under most circumstances render XHTML as HTML, and without the space the slash will interfere.
 * --Jonathan Drain (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no reason not to put the space before the slash.  It helps with compatibility and is totally XHTML-compliant. Superm401 - Talk 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support the idea of HTML syntax. XHTML is bad enough, the idea of combining it with meta refresh is encouraging ignorant web coding, something the world already has a surplus of. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

redirect doesn't cause concerns about security
I checked the reference and that site says the refreshing causes concerns about security, not the re-directing. In my opinion, both would to someone who isn't very web-savvy so should it be changed or not? Hintswen  Talk |  Contribs   23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement about being 'deprecated'
From the intro: "this method is deprecated and should not be used". It's not clear whether this refers to using any 'meta refresh' or just to using it for redirection. James Harvard (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hier habe ich versucht in Deutsch zu übersetzen. (Translation in German)
"Meta refresh" ist eine veraltete Methode die einen Web-Browser anweist die aktuelle Webseite oder den Frame nach einem bestimmten Zeitintervall zu aktualisieren. Die Aktualisierung wird durch HTML meta element mit zwei Parametern "http-equiv"(gesetzt auf "refresh") und "content" (Zeitintervall in sec) definiert. Es ist auch möglich den Browser zu instruieren die andere URL abzurufen indem die alternative URL in das "content" Parameter integriert wird. Durch die Einstellung der Refresh-Zeit-Intervall auf null (oder ein sehr niedriger Wert) kann die "Meta refresh" Methode für die URL – Umleitung benutzt werden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.29.40.11 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Claim with wrong reference
The last paragraph under "History" reads:


 * While this feature has not ever been standardized, it is supported by default in almost all later web browsers.

However, its reference pointing to https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180524163908/https://iconewsblog.org.uk/2015/09/16/does-your-website-have-a-leak/ does not mention `refresh` anywhere - it only mentions `referrer`.

I added the Failed Verification template; since the reference does not talk about refresh at all (and is therefore off-topic), Wikipedia recommends to delete the reference entirely and to replace it with citation needed; although since this is my first edit on Wikipedia, I do not want to take such a decision without talking about it first.

SmallKiwi2 (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like it is standardised now in the HTML Living Standard, although I couldn't see a record of when that happened. I'll remove the paragraph for now — a note on its standardisation can be added later if anyone wants to. Liam McM 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)