RE: Version 1.11

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson <mailbox@gunnar.cc>]

Pamster wrote:
>
> For the problem with saying that links are missing when
> they're not - I reran the site in the previous example - and
> it returned: HTTP/1.1 200 OK - is that what you mean?
Well, yes. Actually I realized when I had posted yesterday that 
I shouldn't have needed to ask. The checker doesn't look for any 
links if the return code is something but 200.
Btw, how common is it that the checker reports failing links 
when the fragment seems to be ok?
As I mentioned in the last posting, the checker tolerates 
certain variations. But this means that the regular expression 
which compares the strings with the pages is rather complicated, 
and I suspect that this may be a reason for these incorrect 
results. I.e. an execution error rather than a program logic 
error.
On the other hand, if I simplify the regex it might be possible 
to reduce the number of execution errors, but instead the 
checker would report some incorrect failures due to program 
logic errors...
In other words: Do you think it's worthwhile to play with the 
code?
/ Gunnar