Re: Using urlcheck - how many broken links should we accept?

2021-03-14 Thread Holger Wansing
Hi, Paul Wise wrote (Sat, 13 Mar 2021 02:45:36 +): > > There are lots of apparent errors where, in fact, it's just a directory > > level > > move - https://www-master.debian.org/build-logs/urlcheck/MailingLists > > That is weird, /intro/cn is a top-level path, not a sub-path of >

Re: Using urlcheck - how many broken links should we accept?

2021-03-12 Thread Paul Wise
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:57 AM Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > There are lots of websites that return error codes. There are still lots > where an http -> https substitution would solve a missing website. The https-everywhere rule-set might help to solve the https problem.

Re: Using urlcheck - how many broken links should we accept?

2021-03-12 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:15 PM Thomas Lange wrote: > Sometimes people replace a broken link with a working link to > archive.org. I do not like that. I prefer removing broken links. And > often the content is also outdated, and removing it may be adequate. For historical pages (like old News

Re: Using urlcheck - how many broken links should we accept?

2021-03-12 Thread Thomas Lange
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:56:43 +, "Andrew M.A. Cater" > said: > There are lots of websites that return error codes. There are still lots > where an http -> https substitution would solve a missing website. I have no oppinion about that. > There are lots of apparent

Using urlcheck - how many broken links should we accept?

2021-03-11 Thread Andrew M.A. Cater
Folks, Looking at the output of urlcheck: There are lots of websites that return error codes. There are still lots where an http -> https substitution would solve a missing website. There are lots of apparent errors where, in fact, it's just a directory level move -