Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, sure - Chris had indicated audit was a needed part, so that's what I
> was suggesting.  You're right that it's trivial to automate - that's why
> when I saw Chris' message, I was somewhat surprised that it wasn't already

My phrasing was perhaps too fuzzy; by 'audit' I meant that the entire DB
needs to be checked for relevency; not only broken links to be fixed, but
also for links to working sites to be checked to ensure the link description
is still relevant and correct with respect to the target site's content.
(Some of those links are in excess of seven years old).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message