Lazar wrote: > my question is if Link Checker is trying to follow javascript links? Based on <http://validator.w3.org/docs/checklink.html> I'd bet on no, I'm too lazy to check the sources. javascript: (pseudo-) URLs used to be a good way to get a fat red 500 error. I can't test it today, <http://people.netscape.com/law/os2nav/index.html> is down, and for unknown reasons checklink doesn't give up to wait for an answer. :-( BTW, simply test it, checklink reports precisely what it does. You would see pagead2.googlesyndication or similar if it tries to check a PPC link. And it uses HTTP HEAD (not HTTP GET) to check links, no chance to confuse it with a paid click. It also respects robots.txt exclusions for User-Agent: W3C-checklink. > Aside from this I wonder why my post appeared as an attachment > rather then a plain text? No idea, here's what GMaNe (a mail2news gateway) sees: <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.validator/10502/raw> A multipart/alternative, first part text/plain, second part text/html, apparently sent from a Yahoo! Webmail interface. Not really Content-Disposition: attachment. User agents can show inline what they like better (alternative), but likely everybody including you hates unnecessary text/html in mail ;-) FrankReceived on Friday, 22 February 2008 18:29:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:06 UTC