Re: checklinks

Not sure what you mean. I ran checklinks on the Jul 28 frozen draft of BLD and
got no broken links.

Also, ,validate gave me a blank page after a while. Does it mean that HTML is
fine?

michael

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:47:50 -0400
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> > > I went through this in bld and made sure that all text inside ul/ol is also
> > > inside the li-tags.
> > > Can u check if this fixes the html in the output version?
> > 
> > It does appear to fix the HTML lists.
> > 
> > I did a new round of drafts.  (July 28).
> > 
> > BLD (along with FLD and UCR) still has many HTML validation errors,
> > though.  Add ",validate" to the URL to see the errors...
> > 
> > How are the ,checklinks reports coming? 
> 
> I looked over them, and there are mixed results.  Still documents still
> have broken links between documents that MUST be fixed.
> 
> Note, however, that the broken results to XML and RDF names, like this:
> 
> = 
> =   http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
> =       What to do: There are broken fragments which must be fixed.
> =       Response status code: 200
> =       Response message: OK
> =       Lines: 524, 3822, 4254
> = 
> =       Broken fragments and their line numbers: They need to be fixed!
> =           string: 524 
> 
> can be ignored.  The checklinks tool isn't so smart about RDF and XML.
> It assumes all URLs are for HTML.
> 
> If you're not sure about wiki junk, run checklinks on the frozen draft
> instead.
> 
>      -- Sandro
>

Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 20:01:29 UTC