- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:43:47 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, indeed much much better! I checked all reported links by hand, and it should be ok now. (there was 1 internal correct positive and external links to RDF-Based Semantics - because of recent change of title in RDF-BS - , all the remaining ones are false >0) I can check the html again only when you regenerate it, the wiki checker is useless, still exhibits a huge number of false broken fragments Christine 2009/5/21 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>: > > Unfortunately, the problem with getting false-positive reports of broken > links from the link checker seems to be sporadic. We haven't been able > to reproduce it reliably. > > The good side of that is that the new link check reports look much > better. There may still be false positives in it, but as I randomly > tried bits of it, I only found one [1]/ > > So please look over the checklinks outputs here: > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/checks > > Thanks! > > - Sandro > > > [1] NFR links to http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Who_Reads_Our_Documents#Database_Federation_Engineer . I believe this link is correct, but falsely reported as a problem. > > -- Christine
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 18:44:27 UTC