Re:  (was: link check)

From: Terje Bless (link@tss.no)
Date: Sat, Jul 14 2001

Next message: Terje Bless: "Re: HTML ID case question"

Previous message: Terje Bless: "Re: Error in validator?"
In reply to: Frank Ellermann: " (was: link check)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:00:17 +0200
From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
To: Frank Ellermann <Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de>
cc: Tim Bagot <tsb-w3-validator-0004@earth.li>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010715054958-r01010700-1bd437f6-0910-010c@192.168.1.6>
Subject: Re: &#128; (was: link check)

[ Sorry, I'm a bit behind on w-v messages ]

On 03.07.01 at 11:51, Frank Ellermann <Frank.Ellermann@t-online.de> wrote:

>After removing the EOF-nonsense: *No errors found.  So a single character
>can have strange side effects in other parts of the checked document...
>intentionally ?

Nope, it's known "issue" to use Microsoft-speak. The "errors" you saw
earlier were actually "warnings", but the last one was a real "error". When
there are no "errors" in the document, we do not display the "warnings".

I haven't quite decided whether this is even remotely sane behaviour, or
how to go about improving it. :-)

Next message: Terje Bless: "Re: HTML ID case question"
Previous message: Terje Bless: "Re: Error in validator?"
In reply to: Frank Ellermann: " (was: link check)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Re: &#128; (was: link check)

Re: (was: link check)