Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-08 19:43:30

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 05:15 PM 10/8/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Sure it makes sense, but the net result was that a link which worked
> >> with the two most common browsers (IE and Netscape) no longer worked.
> >
> >I don't see what point you're trying to make. I'm using Tidy as a
> >validity checker/fixer. Configured the way it is, it's doing its job
> >perfectly. There's nothing scary to me about the fact that it says
> >"this link is invalid, I'm changing it to something legal". I could
> >turn that check off, but then I would be writing invalid HTML.
> Turning invalid, but working, HTML into valid, but non-working, HTML
> doesn't seem like a practical approach.

Never said it was (note that Tidy has no way of knowing whether the
link has a target in the first place, or whether the valid or invalid
URI is the "real" one).

> It seems to me the solution is to apply the fix to both source and
> target files. Applying to only one or the other just results in links
> broken for practical purposes, even though the links are theoretically
> valid.

Which is why I didn't check in a change with that fix in it.

> Applying the fix to both files results in links with are both valid,
> in the sense of meeting specs, and working, in the sense that browsers
> can use them as intended. One without the other isn't helpful.

Yes, but if other pages are linked to that page, I've broken
them. That's why I was trying to grep for all instances of spaces in
URIs. When I failed at that, I gave up.

           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] *

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at