Hi, A high percentage of the html documents in the iostreams library are listed by the inspection tool as unlinked. These documents are not really unlinked, however, and I am having trouble figuring out what is triggering the erroneous report. Among the documents listed as unlinked are menu.html and home.html, which are the entry points into the iostreams documentation. Any help would be appreciated. Jonathan
Sorry, I forgot to include a descriptive subject line. Jonathan
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to include a descriptive subject line.
From quickly reading the inspect code.. It looks like the reason is because it looks for things like SRC="..." while you have SRC='...'. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to include a descriptive subject line.
From quickly reading the inspect code.. It looks like the reason is because it looks for things like SRC="..." while you have SRC='...'.
Okay, thanks. I didn't realize there was such a strong preference for double-quotes. I'll fix my docs. Jonathan
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
From quickly reading the inspect code.. It looks like the reason is because it looks for things like SRC="..." while you have SRC='...'.
Okay, thanks. I didn't realize there was such a strong preference for double-quotes. I'll fix my docs.
Wouldn't fixing the tool to recognize valid HTML be better? Your docs can be the test case for such a fix. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
From quickly reading the inspect code.. It looks like the reason is because it looks for things like SRC="..." while you have SRC='...'.
Okay, thanks. I didn't realize there was such a strong preference for double-quotes. I'll fix my docs.
Wouldn't fixing the tool to recognize valid HTML be better? Your docs can be the test case for such a fix.
I'd be in favor of changing the tool, but it just took a few seconds to change my docs. Jonathan
At 08:00 PM 2/13/2005, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to include a descriptive subject line.
From quickly reading the inspect code.. It looks like the reason is because it looks for things like SRC="..." while you have SRC='...'.
Okay, thanks. I didn't realize there was such a strong preference for double-quotes. I'll fix my docs.
Hum... That code probably reflects my ignorance of the full syntax rules for HTML rather than a strong preference for double-quotes. Feel free to fix the inspection code. --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 08:00 PM 2/13/2005, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to include a descriptive subject line.
From quickly reading the inspect code.. It looks like the reason is >> because it looks for things like SRC="..." while you have SRC='...'. > Okay, thanks. I didn't realize there was such a strong preference for >double-quotes. I'll fix my docs.
Hum... That code probably reflects my ignorance of the full syntax rules for HTML rather than a strong preference for double-quotes. Feel free to fix the inspection code.
Okay, thanks. Jonathan
participants (4)
-
Beman Dawes -
Jonathan Turkanis -
Rene Rivera -
Rob Stewart