- From: Leonard, Kathy <kleona@coair.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:36:43 -0600
- 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 UTC