Blake Winton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say that as if it's an either/or choice. If Eugene wants
to work on making plucker more robust, who are we to stop him? [...]
Oh yes, plucker's Free Software, so if any new developer wants to
concentrate on that, then go ahead. I just didn't want
Eugene Y. Vasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] how feasable it is to have plucker handle obvious html errors
intelligently. [...]
It's rather difficult to detect how to handle these obvious errors.
Normally, it means that the site authors' are depending on some display
logic error of
Eugene Y. Vasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how feasable it is to have plucker handle obvious html
errors intelligently.
It's a compromise: I'd rather Plucker developers spent time
on improving functionality for real web sites (ie ones that
are valid and follow guidelines) than tried to
Having said that, perhaps a better idea would be to have the parser
automatically call tidy, if it's available, so that we could leverage
other people's work.
I would prefer that to be a selective option, not mandatory.
That being said, anything that makes Plucker better, I'm
Having said that, perhaps a better idea would be to have
the parser automatically call tidy, if it's available, so
that we could leverage other people's work.
I would prefer that to be a selective option, not mandatory.
With an entry in the config file. Sounds great to me.
That being
