On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Titus Brown wrote:
[...]
> I could stick with the mechanize/ClientForm approach, which is to deal
> badly with outright errors that exist in the semantics of the page.
> ('tidy' will not fix this!)That wasn't an official 'approach', just that I didn't (until recently) get around to doing anything about it. It's probably a reasonable approach for functional testing for many people, though: generally one is happy to be told about one's own HTML bugs. > I could switch to using BeautifulSoup if BS is installed, as well as > continuing to do doing tidy preprocessing if tidy is installed. There's some BeautifulSoup support in ClientForm and mechanize now. Not well tested yet, and SVN HEAD is a little unstable ATM. > I could also modify ClientForm to be tolerant to ParseErrors of the sort > that Peri encounters. > > Right now I'm leaning towards including BS and modifying ClientForm. If you write something and people use it in twill, I can probably merge it back in to ClientForm as a new parser class. I was nervous about removing the ParseError raises (or similar work) myself, because I wasn't really using it, so I was quite confident of breaking it (I certainly made a mess of it when I implemented the ignore errors arg, which is why I removed it again). If twill users use the modified code, then that's no longer a problem :-) John _______________________________________________ twill mailing list [email protected] http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/twill
