- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:29:50 +0100
- To: www-validator list <www-validator@w3.org>
On 5 Apr 2004, at 09:04, MichaelJennings wrote:
> W3C-checklink said to me, "You are no good - better fix it."
> David Dorward said to me, "You are wrong - w3c-checklink is right."
Hey! Don't (mis)quote me out of context please!
You said: "Actually, I think if you try the URL you'll find it is not
only permitted..."
I said: "Certainly seems to be forbidden to me."
I do agree[1] that the explanation the link checker gives for a
"Forbidden" response needs to be improved.
Currently it reads: "The link is forbidden! This needs fixing. Usual
suspects: a missing index.html or Overview.html, or a missing ACL."
A better alternative might be: "This link is forbidden! This needs
further investigation. It is possible that some or all robots (the Link
Checker is a robot) are banned, you should check the page manually with
a web browser. Other possible suspects include a missing index.html or
misconfigured permission settings."
> Why should people complain when they're bound to be called fools?
I think you are reading too much into my message.
[1] I'm not sure who I'm agreeing with, I think someone responded off
list, but I don't have my main email archive with me at present.
--
David Dorward
<http://dorward.me.uk/>
<http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 04:29:58 UTC