On Wed, 03 May 2006 00:28:12 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:

> 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).

OK, that makes sense - thanks for the clarification, Chris.

Jim

Post a reply to this message