OK, guess I'm overruled. Still seems less confusing to me to actually
pop up the error message, but hey!
Bill
> http://foo.bar.com/bletch.html#tag
> but there's no "tag" in bletch.html) is handled is to point the link
> to the beginning of the page which presumably would have contained the
> link (in the above example, to paragraph 0 of bletch.html).
[...]
> change the parser to treat such URLs as exclu
> This is extremely counter-intuitive. The user is jumped to some place
> that may be wildly out of context (for a long page). I'm going to
> change the parser to treat such URLs as excluded, just as with any other
> URL which doesn't exist.
I have seen pages do this *INTENTIONALLY* by
I see that the current way a missing tag (like a URL with
http://foo.bar.com/bletch.html#tag
but there's no "tag" in bletch.html) is handled is to point the link
to the beginning of the page which presumably would have contained the
link (in the above example, to paragraph 0 of bletch.html).
