in reply to Re^2: HTML::TreeBuilder bug or feature?
in thread HTML::TreeBuilder bug or feature?

I guess that it was my fault. Please see my update above. I understand perfectly that we all cherish our program and don't want others to modify it, as if there was something wrong with it.

I really don't want you to take it in the wrong way, and I am sorry if I made you felt bad, although it was not my intention. My intention was definitely not what you thought it was, and I was not commenting your code. I was merely try to prove that it was a bug, but from a HTML specification point of view.

Put in this way, had the coverted HTML with DOCTYPE at its end also passed the validation, as did the original one, I would have probably said that it was not a bug.

  • Comment on Re^3: HTML::TreeBuilder bug or feature?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: HTML::TreeBuilder bug or feature?
by GrandFather (Saint) on Sep 07, 2005 at 05:17 UTC

    Please accept my appology for misunderstanding your reply. I thought you had misunderstood the nature of the bug I was highlighting and that you had latched on to something spurious. You had not and I now understand what you were doing.

    Cheers, GrandFather


    Perl is Huffman encoded by design.