Created attachment 20198 [details]
Broken Links

I am beginning work on the installation faq link.

Hi, The link in the faq installation directory has been repaired.

Created attachment 20286 [details]
added notes and/or working links to each entry

Created attachment 20287 [details]
same file, but changed mime type so it opens with a click.

Hi,

I just updated one of the broken links at the HOW_TO/index.html. If I did not
follow proper protocol, please cuss me out and set me straight.

kcarr: I noticed that there is no PDF version of the Bullet Proof Templates
document in the various topics section. Is this an oversight? I did not remove
the PDF link, in case it is in the plan to add a PDF version of this document.
If that is not the plan, then maybe we should remove that unattached PDF link? I
decided to ask first, so that rework was not necessary if the link had an
intended purpose, as it seems.

st: I noticed that the link finder tool did not find all the broken links in the
how-to section. There are several HTML documents there that have a contact link
that points to the whiteboard area. In the endmost data provided in your text
file, things started looking odd, which is what helped me to dig in a little
further. I made notes on the txt file and will upload it. I also removed the
information about links that have been fixed. I'm wondering if that tool got
confused in the midst of its process, which is why I am pointing it out to you.

Created attachment 20432 [details]
removed fixed links; added more notes about broken links

Accepting issue and have started work: Fixed broken links on
setup_guides2/index.html and manuals/index.html. Have checked out HOW_TO/index
page for further clean-up.

Removed broken and partial links on the HOW_TO/index.html page and neatened table. 

Created attachment 20670 [details]
updated file; removed fixed links from list.

Created attachment 20672 [details]
further inspection of html how_to docs show there are links still broken

Created attachment 20702 [details]
updated file; removed fixed files from list.

Created attachment 20703 [details]
updated with fixed links removed

reassigning issue to myself to allow my home page default query to pull it to
the list of issues that shows there.

Tracing broken link issue back into the SXW and PDF copies of
HOW_TO/data_source/link_tablehtml/link.html leads back to Issue 7135, where
issues found with the SXW version of this file will be reported.

marking issue as started (again), because the work is in process.

Hi st: It turns out that all link issues pointed out by the link checker tool
were found, except for one. (I'm so puzzled by that one too!) I could not see
some of what it found, until I looked back into the records, so the tool was
better than me. :) I was wondering if you would consider running the link
checker tool another time on the doc project at some point to see how we are
doing...? (Please don't rush.) I think we are close, but I haven't manually
inspected too much in other areas, where the link checker tool did not already
point to issues.

Created attachment 20863 [details]
updated; removed repaired item.

Diane. I have added a sxw of the data1_EN.html file. Hopefully it will give you
some control over what you are doing with this item. Scott please review.

I added four or five closing </a> tags to the html file, and that is all I
planned to do. It did not look as if it was an OOo generated file to me. If it
started as an OOo file, then it has been severely renovated.

I just looked at the sxw document for the data1_EN file, and it does look like
it was an original. That points out that a whole chunk of history is somehow
missing from the documented records, which has me a little puzzled. 

Q1: Are the whiteboard doc project records still available somewhere, or were
they removed? If they still exist, I would like to dig through them to further
educate myself.

The attic did not contain this old doc that you added, Ger. The html file that I
edited was a version 1.1 and had not been touched for a couple of years. The sxw
document you uploaded is a version 1.1, yet it is dated as 2002 inside the
document and was written by Scott, but it has a recent date stamp on it and was
provided by you. 

Q2: Where was the data1_EN.sxw file?

Q3: Was the sxw document removed intentionally, after the html document was
polished? 

The data1_EN.html is one of the prettiest html documents, code wise, that I have
laid my eyes upon since beginning this work. It was truly be-autiful. Do we
really want to introduce an sxw file, so that the code can possibly be
overwritten? After being told that my html composer messed up existing html
code, it would be surprisingly inconsistent to overwrite this very neat code in
the data1_EN.html file.

I'm not sure what to think of this new/old .sxw file. I'm not sure what I should
do with it. To me, in some ways it seems potentially confusing, as it is named
the same, yet is a different source of information. The files have not been
brought fwd together. Codewise, they are two very different files. I'm not even
sure that this chunk of conversation is pertinent to the work housed in this
issue report. Could you please lay out the desired action that you envision for
 this sxw file? Should we move this to a different issue, or to a mail list?
Or...? I'd prefer to carry on the conversation in an open and documented
workspace, if that is possible. I would like to better understand the intention
of (re?)introducing the sxw file, which was not in sight before I made wee small
tweaks to the html file.

The new doc was created from the html file. It took about 20 minutes to do the
work. I think Scott generated the original by hand.

That's interesting. Normally, if I saw an sxw and and html file in one location,
I would assume the sxw to be the original source, and the html to be generated
from it. It is like this in most spots on the doc project site. How do we
differentiate the original to folks? Granted, you will tell me only a few folks
do editting on the site, but it seems that there is potential for the community
to grow beyond this state. How do we maintain control, or do we not really
care....? I guess I just sorta fell in love with the html file in this case;
perhaps I should simply detach and move along. But, I will ask the question out
loud in case others wish to consider whether or not we care about where an
original file lives, if it is designated as such, and how we carry on with
future maintenance, if it is needed.

Thanks for the compliment on my HTML.  I can't stand busy html docs that OOo and
most other editors do, so I tend to use plain VI/VIM for editing.

data1_en was one of the original files that made it to the HOW TO section.  The
other problem we had at the time was that CollabNet wouldn't honor Style
sections that were embeded in the document, so we had to make sure the page
looked good without any styles.

Now we can use OOo export to create the document, and not have to work with the
HTML directly, which helps with people that want to contribute to the document
without having to know HTML first.  Collabnet moves the Head section to the head
section of the html it sends and makes styles alot easier to handle now.

If we can post the SXW file for this, and keep that as the master, that would
probably help anyone that wants to contribute to the file in the future.

I believe any further discussion of this should be done on the Dev list, as it
deals with infrastructure of the site, which is always up for discussion.  ;-)

ok, on that note, I will add a link to it onto the HOW_TO index page, and move
along. Thank you!

I believe all the html files at the documentation project that had broken links
are now fixed. The one sxw file that has not been fixed is reported on its own
issue, Issue 7135. I am marking this issue as fixed. May I close this issue?

I've realized this can be reopened if there is further issue with this report,
so I am closing this issue. Please reopen it if more link issues show themselves
at the documentation project, and we'll go from there. Thanx.

kcarr, please see this issue as another example