On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:44 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
What this suggestion request is that the old link as published act as a soft link to the new location and transitively so. If someone wants to use a soft link filename for an actual file, it can be deleted in the same way that any other file is deleted. E.g., much as UNIX filesystem links work.If I understand correctly, what I'm hearing is a desire for a URL that is generated for each file and continues to work independently of its file name. For myself, I sometimes rename files for the express purpose of ensuring that outdated links do not point to it.
I'm unable resolve these two use cases, but at least the current behavior is consistent with how URLs work in the real world of web site maintenance.