> Eugene Y. Vasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > how feasable it is to have plucker handle obvious html > > errors "intelligently". > It's a compromise: I'd rather Plucker developers spent time > on improving functionality for real web sites (ie ones that > are valid and follow guidelines) than tried to square the > circle and understand the unintelligible. Wouldn't you?
You say that as if it's an either/or choice. If Eugene wants to work on making plucker more robust, who are we to stop him? The beauty of Open Source software like plucker is that everyone is a developer, or at least can be. As long as the patches don't introduce bugs, or break other bits, or take too long to run, I don't think anyone with commit access will complain too heavily about them. Having said that, perhaps a better idea would be to have the parser automatically call tidy, if it's available, so that we could leverage other people's work. Then Eugene could spend his time making tidy better, and more people would benefit from his labour. Later, Blake. _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
