|
|
 | | From: | Nisse_Engström | | Subject: | Link checker madness | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:39:52 +0100 |
|
|
 | I ran W3C's link checker on:
and got the following response:
----
What to do: There are broken fragments which must be fixed.
Response status code: 200
Response message: OK
Lines: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
.
.
.
302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314
----
However, to last was not the order of things, and the checker
promptly proceeded to present the preposterousity that follows:
----
Broken fragments and their line numbers: They need to be fixed!
127: 142
276: 291
206: 221
030: 45
118: 133
102: 117
050: 65
037: 52
006: 21
080: 95
076: 91
233: 248
194: 209
259: 274
220: 235
163: 178
175: 190
056: 71
092: 107
208: 223
.
.
.
----
:-)
--n
|
|
| | From: | Shannon Jacobs | | Subject: | Re: Link checker madness | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:39:10 +0900 |
|
|
| What exactly are you trying to do? Create a pathological example of
something? You seem to have a page of links to internal anchors, and none of
the anchors is defined. That certainly should fail any check of the links.
Nothing preposterous about that. At least that's what it looks like as of my
visit a few minutes ago.
Also, I don't see why you put this in off-topic, though where it actually
does belong is probably related to whatever mysterious thing you are trying
to do.
Nisse Engström wrote:
> I ran W3C's link checker on:
>
>
>
> and got the following response:
>
> ----
> What to do: There are broken fragments which must be fixed.
> Response status code: 200
> Response message: OK
> Lines: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
> .
> .
> .
> 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314
> ----
>
> However, to last was not the order of things, and the checker
> promptly proceeded to present the preposterousity that follows:
>
> ----
> Broken fragments and their line numbers: They need to be fixed!
> 127: 142
> 276: 291
> 206: 221
> 030: 45
> 118: 133
> 102: 117
> 050: 65
> 037: 52
> 006: 21
> 080: 95
> 076: 91
> 233: 248
> 194: 209
> 259: 274
> 220: 235
> 163: 178
> 175: 190
> 056: 71
> 092: 107
> 208: 223
> .
> .
> .
> ----
>
> :-)
>
>
> --n
|
|
| | From: | Nisse_Engström | | Subject: | Re: Link checker madness | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:53:53 +0100 |
|
|
| Shannon Jacobs wrote:
> What exactly are you trying to do? Create a pathological example of
> something?
A pathological example is exactly what it is,
though I created it for Opera, not for the link
checker. (Something about anchors and 'z-index').
I thought the result was hilarious: The first list
is neatly ordered from 15 to 314. The next list is
in total chaos.
> Also, I don't see why you put this in off-topic, though
> where it actually does belong is probably related to
> whatever mysterious thing you are trying to do.
I discarded a bit of humour off the beaten track.
> Nisse Engström wrote:
> >
> > :-)
^^^
--n
|
|
| | From: | Shannon Jacobs | | Subject: | Re: Link checker madness | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:35:19 +0900 |
|
|
| Nisse Engström wrote:
> A pathological example is exactly what it is,
> though I created it for Opera, not for the link
> checker. (Something about anchors and 'z-index').
> I thought the result was hilarious: The first list
> is neatly ordered from 15 to 314. The next list is
> in total chaos.
Well, it looks the same here, running from 0 to 299 in all three browsers
(Opera, IE, and Firefox) with no chaos anywhere. OSes are Japanese versions
of WXP and W2K. I'm still missing your point. Anyone else seeing it?
|
|
| | From: | Nisse_Engström | | Subject: | Re: Link checker madness | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:52:02 +0100 |
|
|
| Shannon Jacobs wrote:
> Nisse Engström wrote:
>
> > A pathological example is exactly what it is,
> > though I created it for Opera, not for the link
> > checker. (Something about anchors and 'z-index').
> > I thought the result was hilarious: The first list
> > is neatly ordered from 15 to 314. The next list is
> > in total chaos.
>
> Well, it looks the same here, running from 0 to 299 in all three browsers
> (Opera, IE, and Firefox) with no chaos anywhere. OSes are Japanese versions
> of WXP and W2K. I'm still missing your point. Anyone else seeing it?
Am I chronically unclear? :-)
What I posted here was about the W3C's link checker,
hence the 'off-topic' newsgroup. Due to the intented
humourous nature of the article, I chose to express
myself deliberatly unnecessarily convolutedly, and
retrospectively, probably mistakenly. :-)
The page itself is about Opera (and the issue about
what it is, was discussed more than 2 months ago).
See...
....for details.
--n
|
|
|
