- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:37:30 +0100
- To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, <sandro@w3.org>, <schneid@fzi.de>, <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I think that we will have to validate and check the links in the actual HTML that is produced from the wiki. This is a pain, I know, if the link checker doesn't get fixed. Otherwise things should be relatively straightforward for the CR docs as they were thoroughly checked for 2nd LC and are little changed since then. The LC docs may need a bit more work. Regards, Ian On 21 May 2009, at 15:15, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote: > Sandro will set up his set of hoops at some point, and then we can > jump > through them. :-) > > peter > > > From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> > Subject: Re: Check links > Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:09:42 -0500 > >> All, >> >> I manually checked the links in NF&R earlier in the week. Are we >> confident that >> correct wiki links will generate correct html links, or will we >> have to >> re-check the >> links in the html rendering of these docs? More generally, what >> do we >> expect that >> the editors of the documents will need to do between now and actual >> publication >> and when? >> >> -Evan >> >> Michael Schneider wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> The NF&R document seems to be hit particularly hard by the >>> problem Peter >>> reported earlier this day. NF&R contains many deep-links into other >>> documents, and the CheckLinks tool claims that many of these >>> links (or more >>> precisely: their fragments) are broken. However, from the sample >>> of links >>> that I checked manually, it looks to me that they are all fine. >>> >>> CheckLinks should really be fixed soon. >>> >>> Michael >> >
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 14:38:12 UTC