Titus Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:46:42PM +0100, Lars Stavholm wrote: > -> Titus Brown wrote: > -> > Hi, Lars, > -> > > -> > neither tidy nor BeautifulSoup like the conditionals in the HTML on this > -> > page; the culprit on jonitec.se appears to be this: > -> > > -> > === > -> > > -> > <!-- CorrectPNG! Module : compliance patch for microsoft browsers --> > -> > <!--[if gte IE 5.5000]> > -> > <!--[if lte IE 7]><script language="JavaScript" > src="http://www.jonitec.se/mambots/system/botcorrectpng/correctpng.js";></script><![endif]--> > -> > <![endif]--> > -> > > -> > === > -> > > -> > That is, if I remove that from the page, showlinks works fine. The > -> > <![endif]--> is specifically what's causing the problem; if you put > -> > <!--[endif]--> link parsing works. > -> > > -> > Do you have any thoughts on how to deal with this? It's obviously > -> > incorrect HTML but it shouldn't be breaking things this badly ;). > -> > -> Thanks Titus! Problem solved in the sense that I fixed the parsing > -> problem by simply making sure that correct HTML is produced following > -> your advice and findings. I'll remember to try and make sure that I > -> have correct HTML before running twill again. > -> > -> >From an overall perspective, I'd say that we're done. One should really > -> require correct HTML to be produced. > -> > -> However, is there any way one could tell twill/tidy/BeautifulSoup to > -> produce an error message when incorrect HTML is discovered? That would > -> be handy in a testing tool like twill. As it stands now, I got a bit > -> lost. > > So, I do have the 'tidy_ok' command in there, but tidy is pretty strict. > "Correct HTML" is kind of an interesting concept: there's *pedantically* > correct, and then there's "can be parsed, kinda".
Speaking for myself, I would settle for strict since I'm developing these sites myself, and I want the result to be correct and validated HTML. On the other hand, "can be parsed, kinda'" could be useful as well, but it's like opening a can of worms, what's the boundaries for any approximations? Sounds a bit too difficult to me (but I'm not that savvy on these things). Forgive my ignorance. I put back the HTML error and tried the following: go http://www.jonitec.se tidy_ok extend_with check_links check_links www\.jonitec\.se ...and subsequently got: >> EXECUTING FILE jonitec.se.twill ==> at http://www.jonitec.se Imported extension module 'check_links'. (at /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/twill/extensions/check_links.pyc) in check_links no links to check!? -- 1 of 1 files SUCCEEDED. ...i.e. same situation as before. Am I using tidy_ok incorrectly? > That is, I welcome ideas on how to detect and report "bad" HTML! > > I think for the moment I'm going to add two things: > > - the ability to output the HTML *after* tidy is done with it, which in > this case would have highlighted the problem immediately. Sounds like a plan. > - the ability to output a 'plain text' rendering of HTML, so that > humans can see the structure more easily. Even better. > Any thoughts? Above. /Lars _______________________________________________ twill mailing list [email protected] http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/twill
