> > 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. > I would prefer that to be a selective option, not mandatory.
With an entry in the config file. Sounds great to me. > That being said, anything that makes Plucker better, I'm all > for it, but we shouldn't "allow" those webmasters to continue > to make garbage, invalid HTML, and assume that we, the tool > authors, will just compensate for it. And yet, that's what has to happen, unless you have some way of forcing content-producers to care about random technical issues. For more perspectives on the topic, I present: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/22/parse_at_all_costs.html which is about parsing XML, which is supposed to be less of a tag soup than HTML (which almost everyone has given up any hope of imposing structure on). Along those lines, perhaps when we hit an invalid html page, we can email the owner of that page (using some reasonably simple scheme to figure out the address to mail to) letting them know that their page has failed, and they should probably fix it... The more people who use Plucker, the more email they'll get, the quicker they'll fix it. The previous suggestion was made in jest. Well, maybe half in jest. Something similar which allowed the user to choose to send the mail or not, and even edit the mail before sending might not be such a bad idea. Later, Blake. _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
