This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1835 - suggestions
Summary: suggestions
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: LinkChecker
Classification: Unclassified
Component: checklink (show other bugs)
Version: 4.2.1
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Olivier Thereaux
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-08-09 12:27 UTC by art zerger
Modified: 2005-08-09 20:10 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description art zerger 2005-08-09 12:27:56 UTC
1) Have check box on web interface to ignore robots.txt file when checking links.

2) Have two text boxes to enter username/password so checker can access password
protected path.

Thanks,

azerger@yahoo.com
Comment 1 Olivier Thereaux 2005-08-09 15:11:43 UTC
This is not a CSS validator issue, changing product.
Comment 2 art zerger 2005-08-09 15:34:27 UTC
using online check

http://validator.w3.org/checklink
Comment 3 art zerger 2005-08-09 15:34:46 UTC
using online check

http://validator.w3.org/checklink
Comment 4 Ville Skyttä 2005-08-09 20:10:47 UTC
I'm inclined to reject the suggestion of making it possible to ignore   
robots.txt.  If the server admin wants to allow the link checker,   
documentation how to achieve that exists.   
http://search.cpan.org/dist/W3C-LinkChecker/docs/checklink.html#bot   
   
Regarding username/password input, I don't see it feasible to implement much   
more than what's already in (ie. Basic (+maybe Digest, I don't remember now)  
auth proxying for the initial URL's realm).  
  
No matter what authentication method is used, it needs to be controlled where  
to send the authentication info (at the very least, based on URL(s)) during a   
link check, it cannot be sent everywhere due to security considerations.   
   
Regarding form-based login, the form field names where to add the   
username/password would be need to be made configurable.  Also, the URL where   
to send the form (it might be different than the resource that one wants to   
check), whether to use GET or POST, whether the login form needs more   
parameters than just the user/pass, etc would need to be configured by the   
poor user.  This is all theoretically doable, but I don't personally think we  
should be in that business at all, there are just too many "moving parts" in  
it.