- From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- Date: 06 Dec 2002 14:35:19 +0200
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Cc: webreq@w3.org, www-validator@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 00:40, Joseph Reagle wrote: > 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)? Yes, when invoked from the web, checklink limits the recursion scope so that when recursively checking <http://foo.bar.org/quux/something>, only documents below <http://foo.bar.org/quux/> are checked. When invoked from command line, the -l option can be used for specifying the scope. > 2. It's complaining about two fragment identifiers as discussed below. Hmm. Just guessing; I think it does follow the redirect, but doesn't grok the response. When retrieving <http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig>, I always get redirected (303) to <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd>, which is served as application/xml. Checklink only checks text/html and application/xhtml+xml docs, so it just reports the anchors as broken. Assuming my guess is correct, the "coming soon fix" would be not to report anchors broken when they weren't even checked, but to confess what actually did (not) happen. Regarding the Accept header, perhaps checklink should send something like Accept: application/xhtml+xml, text/html, */*;q=0.5 ...by default. See bugs 111, 112 and 113 at <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>, and thanks for the feedback! -- \/ille Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 07:34:22 UTC