I think that in this case you'll find that it's Google that's done you wrong, so to speak. They seem to have fixed the intelligence that previously prevented them from indexing Domino sites properly, but they've done it by essentially ignoring views. The view is used as a "link source" to generate the document index, but note that they've "thrown out" the view in the links. Regardless of the view the document link is derived from, they will use "/0/" (which has broken any number of Domino apps that relied on form formulas to render "safe" HTML to users). My take on this is that Google have taken advantage of someone with Domino expertise to handle the nsf-in-the-url case, and that someone has made a lot of assumptions about what Domino applications are supposed to look like. You know -- views on the web should look like views in the Notes client, and so forth. Obviously not anyone who's spent any time skulking about on this site....
I think that in this case you'll find that it's Google that's done you wrong, so to speak. They seem to have fixed the intelligence that previously prevented them from indexing Domino sites properly, but they've done it by essentially ignoring views. The view is used as a "link source" to generate the document index, but note that they've "thrown out" the view in the links. Regardless of the view the document link is derived from, they will use "/0/" (which has broken any number of Domino apps that relied on form formulas to render "safe" HTML to users). My take on this is that Google have taken advantage of someone with Domino expertise to handle the nsf-in-the-url case, and that someone has made a lot of assumptions about what Domino applications are supposed to look like. You know -- views on the web should look like views in the Notes client, and so forth. Obviously not anyone who's spent any time skulking about on this site....