Hi, just an additional remark to my own posting.
> > There is no easy way to punish the culprit. The only thing you can do > > in the long run is refuse to interoperate with something that openly > > breaks applicable standards. Otherwise you're not only rewarding the > > culprit, but destroying all the other tools because they will sooner > > or later collapse under the weight of kludges needed to support the > > broken HTML. > > I can't argue with that. > However, from the _user's_ point of view, _wget_ would seem to be broken, > as the user's webbrowser probably shows everything correctly. > If it is decided that wget does not consider links with LF/CR > in them, then IMHO, the user should get informed what happened. I just realized that this would mean that wget has to be able to detect the breaking of rules and then give a message to the user. That creates a situation where: a) wget has to be smart enough that _something_ is broken (and not just a 404) b) wget would ideally be so smart to know _what_ is broken c) the user thinks: Well, if wget knows what is wrong, why doesn't wget correct it? On the other hand, not giving even a brief message like "Invalid HTML code found, downloaded files may be unwanted." I don't know how to balance that :( CU Jens -- GMX Weihnachts-Special: Seychellen-Traumreise zu gewinnen! Rentier entlaufen. Finden Sie Rudolph! Als Belohnung winken tolle Preise. http://www.gmx.net/de/cgi/specialmail/ +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More! +++
