- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:40:01 -0500
- To: webreq@w3.org
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Looking at: http://validator.w3.org/checklink?uri=http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Drafts/xmlenc-core/Overview.html&recursive=on 1. It looks like it's checking links for '/' and '/Overview.html' (with recursive on)? 2. It's complaining about two fragment identifiers as discussed below. [17:32:41] <reagleHOM> also, is a link checker guru here? i don't know what the problem is with the fragment-id's on the dsig spec...? [17:32:48] <reagleHOM> sha1: 1745, 2494 [17:33:44] <reagleHOM> the fragment id's, i suspoct something is getting confused with the namespace redirect [17:34:00] <reagleHOM> but all the other fragments work, just the sha1 and base64 seem to fail [17:34:15] <hugo> hmmm... http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig is text/xml, right? [17:34:16] <reagleHOM> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1 is a real URI.... but linkchecker don't think so... [17:34:23] <reagleHOM> hugo, depends what you ask for [17:35:33] <hugo> it seems that the link checker doesn't get <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/Overview.html> [17:35:39] <reagleHOM> hugo: xmldsig namespace does a redirect based on http://www.w3.org/2001/06/mime-types.html [17:35:42] <hugo> well, I don't know; report a bug :-) [17:35:54] <reagleHOM> what accept does link checker send? [17:36:15] <hugo> none, I think, which is a mistake
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 17:42:01 UTC