W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Web archive processing

From: Leonard, Kathy <kleona@coair.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:36:43 -0600
Message-ID: <0DA69985C26F8E48A3D256448C6A52AF7763BE@chqjexc02>
To: "'Richard A. O'Keefe'" <ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz>, html-tidy@w3.org, rick.parsons@eds.com
Please get me out of this loop.  If I signed up for something - unsign me.
Please!!!


Kathy Leonard
Sr. Technical Writer
Methods & Standards
713-324-8980
kleona@coair.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Richard A. O'Keefe [mailto:ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz] 
Sent:	Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:50 PM
To:	html-tidy@w3.org; rick.parsons@eds.com
Subject:	RE: Web archive processing

I wrote:
	> Also, what should I do to make Tidy complain if a page
	> + does contain relative URIs,
	> - does NOT have a <base> element in the <head>?
	
Rick Parsons wrote:
	I don't see why it should.  It is perfectly valid HTML.  If you
	are looking for a link checker, that would be another product.
	
HTML Tidy does not confine itself to tidying up HTML.
It *also* probides accessibility tips.
Yes, I know that a page which contains relative URIs and does not have
a <base> element is perfectly valid.
It is also a collection of links that haven't broken YET (so a link
checker probably wouldn't notice any problem), but are just waiting
for a chance to happen, and that's a usability problem.
It's the kind of thing Tidy *could* detect quite easily,
and it's very much in the spirit of things that Tidy *does* detect
and warn about.

Note that I did not ask for Tidy to report this as a fatal error,
or to change the resulting HTML in any way, simply that I'd like it to
"complain", meaning to write a warning message (if the user requested it).
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 16:38:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:51 GMT