Checking links and robots.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

    > I tried to check the links of some pages of the website
    > http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com and I got this message


    I guess the relevant part of the message page you got is this:

    "The link was not checked due to robots exclusion rules. Check the link
    manually, and see also the link checker documentation on robots
    exclusion."

    for two URLs. It misleadingly appears under the heading "List of broken
    links and redirects" - it means that the link checker _did not check_
    those links, so it cannot know whether they are broken or redirected or
    just fine.

    > As far as
    > I remember I have not set any robots.txt .


    You don't. The URL http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/robots.txt
    does not refer to anything; and that's the URL that any well-behaving
    robot checks first, before fetching anything from your site - if the
    resource does not exist, the robot assumes it's welcome. (You would use
    robots.txt to _exclude_ robots if you wanted to.)

    > Is robots.txt on the validator?


    Yes. And elsewhere.

    The link checker is presumably a well-behaving robot. This means that
    before checking links pointing to a site, it first checks for robots.txt
    at the site pointed to. Thus, when you have a link with href value
    <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.
    scaiecat-spa-gigi.com%2Fit%2Fsvezia.html>
    the checker first asks for
    http://validator.w3.org/robots.txt
    and when it gets it, it finds out that it says

    User-agent: *
    Disallow: /check

    which means that all robots are forbidden to fetch anything with a URL
    that begins with

    http://validator.w3.org/check

    Similar things happen to
    <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://www.
    scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html>
    because http://jigsaw.w3.org/robots.txt says "no" to all robots as
    regards to some parts of the site - including
    Disallow: /css-validator/validator

    For reasons unknown to me, the W3C thus wants to restrict link checking
    (with W3C's tool) for "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" types of links that
    the W3C recommends.

    If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence for
    the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse than
    useless. (For other evidence see
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon )

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    > For reasons unknown to me, the W3C thus wants to restrict link checking
    > (with W3C's tool) for "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" types of links that
    > the W3C recommends.
    >
    > If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence for
    > the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse than
    > useless. (For other evidence see
    > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon )


    Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the opinion
    you have expressed.
    I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster if the
    page which I have updated is still valid or not.
    As to my questions I was wondering whether the fact that the robots did not
    look at those links should mean that they did not look at the whole code
    within
    <div class="bottom">
    and </div>
    I wrote when the page was last updated within <div class="bottom">
    and </div> so I was afraid that the robots could miss that for example the
    page http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html has been recently
    updated ..

    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/boendeiitalien.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Luigi Donatello Asero

    tm Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence for
    > the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse than
    > useless. (For other evidence see
    > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon )


    At the bottom of the above page you write-

    "This page is intentionally not valid HTML. Not so much as a protest
    to false or misleading claims on validity but as a simple measure
    against DOCTYPE sniffing. The simplest way to promote more
    standards-compliant processing of a document by browsers is to use an
    HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter what markup is actually used in
    the document. It is moral to fool browsers that way, since they have
    been intentionally designed to do the wrong thing with a DOCTYPE (and
    unintentionally made to do the wrong thing in differing wrong ways)."

    Could you explain? What is wrong with DOCTYPE sniffing?
     
    tm, Aug 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Sam Hughes Guest

    tm <> wrote in
    news::

    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    >> [...]

    >
    > At the bottom of the above page you write-
    >
    > "This page is intentionally not valid HTML. Not so much as a
    > protest
    > to false or misleading claims on validity but as a simple measure
    > against DOCTYPE sniffing. The simplest way to promote more
    > standards-compliant processing of a document by browsers is to use
    > an HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter what markup is actually used
    > in the document. It is moral to fool browsers that way, since they
    > have been intentionally designed to do the wrong thing with a
    > DOCTYPE (and unintentionally made to do the wrong thing in differing
    > wrong ways)."
    >
    > Could you explain? What is wrong with DOCTYPE sniffing?


    First of all, Web browsers use this sniffing to justify rendering those
    documents with a certain/missing document type declaration incorrectly.
    Also, such behavior can prevent authors from using the appropriate DTD.
    This is not what doctypes are for, and it is not how doctypes should be
    treated.

    --
    How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
    <http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>
     
    Sam Hughes, Aug 13, 2004
    #5
  6. "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

    > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
    > opinion you have expressed.


    Perhaps. There's a rich supply of opinions in the world. But they lack
    reasonable arguments.

    > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
    > if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.


    If you have difficulties in using a validator, then you should find some
    convenient tools for the purpose, like bookmarks. _Not_ pollute your
    pages with obscure icons. If you had problems with using a spelling
    checker, would you consider adding an icon that _claims_ that your text
    has been spelling checked, yet use it to _check_ whether its spelling is
    correct? If your page is not valid _all the time_, it is dishonest to
    claim (with the icon) that it is.

    > As to my questions I was wondering whether the fact that the robots
    > did not look at those links should mean that they did not look at the
    > whole code within
    > <div class="bottom">
    > and </div>


    I don't see how that could affect robots the least.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Luigi Donatello Asero

    tm Guest

    Sam Hughes <> wrote:
    > tm wrote
    > > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > >
    > >> [...]

    > >
    > > At the bottom of the above page you write-
    > >
    > > "This page is intentionally not valid HTML. Not so much as a
    > > protest
    > > to false or misleading claims on validity but as a simple measure
    > > against DOCTYPE sniffing. The simplest way to promote more
    > > standards-compliant processing of a document by browsers is to use
    > > an HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter what markup is actually used
    > > in the document. It is moral to fool browsers that way, since they
    > > have been intentionally designed to do the wrong thing with a
    > > DOCTYPE (and unintentionally made to do the wrong thing in differing
    > > wrong ways)."
    > >
    > > Could you explain? What is wrong with DOCTYPE sniffing?

    >
    > First of all, Web browsers use this sniffing to justify rendering those
    > documents with a certain/missing document type declaration incorrectly.
    > Also, such behavior can prevent authors from using the appropriate DTD.
    > This is not what doctypes are for, and it is not how doctypes should be
    > treated.


    No offense Sam, I'm sure that makes sense to you since you know what
    you are trying to say, but I'm still lost.
    Web browsers use sniffing to render documents incorrectly?
    This prevents authors from using the appropriate DTD?

    How do browsers use sniffing to render documents incorrectly?
     
    tm, Aug 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Steve Pugh Guest

    tm <> wrote:

    >How do browsers use sniffing to render documents incorrectly?


    What do you think quirks mode is? It's when the browser decides to
    render the document according to the bugs in previous generations of
    browsers, i.e. incorrectly.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Aug 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Luigi Donatello Asero

    tm Guest

    Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    > tm <> wrote:


    > >How do browsers use sniffing to render documents incorrectly?

    >
    > What do you think quirks mode is? It's when the browser decides to
    > render the document according to the bugs in previous generations of
    > browsers, i.e. incorrectly.


    Yeah yeah. That's not the question.

    "The simplest way to promote more standards-compliant processing of a
    document by browsers is to use an HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter
    what markup is actually used in the document. It is moral to fool
    browsers that way, since they have been intentionally designed to do
    the wrong thing with a DOCTYPE (and unintentionally made to do the
    wrong thing in differing wrong ways)." "
    --Jukka K. Korpela

    Why only HTML 4.01 Strict? What evil will befall if i use, say, XHTML
    1.0 Transitional?
     
    tm, Aug 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Steve Pugh Guest

    tm <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >> tm <> wrote:

    >
    >> >How do browsers use sniffing to render documents incorrectly?

    >>
    >> What do you think quirks mode is? It's when the browser decides to
    >> render the document according to the bugs in previous generations of
    >> browsers, i.e. incorrectly.

    >
    >Yeah yeah. That's not the question.


    Pardon me for answering the question you asked. If you meant to ask a
    different question...

    >"The simplest way to promote more standards-compliant processing of a
    >document by browsers is to use an HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter
    >what markup is actually used in the document. It is moral to fool
    >browsers that way, since they have been intentionally designed to do
    >the wrong thing with a DOCTYPE (and unintentionally made to do the
    >wrong thing in differing wrong ways)." "
    >--Jukka K. Korpela
    >
    >Why only HTML 4.01 Strict? What evil will befall if i use, say, XHTML
    >1.0 Transitional?


    Pick one doctype, it doesn't matter which one, that triggers Standards
    mode and use that doctype regardless of the actual markup in the
    document. That's what Jukka seems to be saying here. And HTML 4.01
    Strict is as good a choice as any and better than some.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Aug 13, 2004
    #10
  11. Luigi Donatello Asero

    tm Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:
    > tm wrote:


    > >"The simplest way to promote more standards-compliant processing of a
    > >document by browsers is to use an HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, no matter
    > >what markup is actually used in the document. It is moral to fool
    > >browsers that way, since they have been intentionally designed to do
    > >the wrong thing with a DOCTYPE (and unintentionally made to do the
    > >wrong thing in differing wrong ways)." "
    > >--Jukka K. Korpela
    > >
    > >Why only HTML 4.01 Strict? What evil will befall if i use, say, XHTML
    > >1.0 Transitional?

    >
    > Pick one doctype, it doesn't matter which one, that triggers Standards
    > mode and use that doctype regardless of the actual markup in the
    > document. That's what Jukka seems to be saying here. And HTML 4.01
    > Strict is as good a choice as any and better than some.


    Ah. That makes sense.
     
    tm, Aug 13, 2004
    #11
  12. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns9544C348955EFjkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
    > > opinion you have expressed.

    >
    > Perhaps. There's a rich supply of opinions in the world. But they lack
    > reasonable arguments.


    And who should decide which opinions lack reasonable arguments?
    > > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
    > > if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.

    >
    > If you have difficulties in using a validator, then you should find some
    > convenient tools for the purpose, like bookmarks. _Not_ pollute your
    > pages with obscure icons. If you had problems with using a spelling
    > checker, would you consider adding an icon that _claims_ that your text
    > has been spelling checked, yet use it to _check_ whether its spelling is
    > correct? If your page is not valid _all the time_, it is dishonest to
    > claim (with the icon) that it is.


    I do not share your opinion but you may have yours. When you put an icon on
    the page it may happen that you insert something which is wrong.
    Actually, the code has a space before uri
    http://validator.w3.org/check?
    uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com%2Fit%2Fsvezia.html
    which must be corrected.
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...charset=(detect automatically)&doctype=Inline
    That does not mean though that the icon and the validator are useless.
    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Sam Hughes Guest

    "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
    news:%11Tc.458$:

    >
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    >
    >> If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence
    >> for the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse
    >> than useless. (For other evidence see
    >> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon )

    >
    > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
    > opinion you have expressed.
    > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
    > if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.


    You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
    careful about word wrap:
    javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
    (location))

    CSS Validator:
    javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
    uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')

    Some info:
    http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/moveabletype/fblog/archives/000059.html


    --
    How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
    <http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>
     
    Sam Hughes, Aug 14, 2004
    #13
  14. "Sam Hughes" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns9544DE63667D3hughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
    > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
    > news:%11Tc.458$:
    >
    > >
    > > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > > news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    > >
    > >> If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another evidence
    > >> for the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons are worse
    > >> than useless. (For other evidence see
    > >> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon )

    > >
    > > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
    > > opinion you have expressed.
    > > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check faster
    > > if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.

    >
    > You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
    > careful about word wrap:
    > javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
    > (location))
    >
    > CSS Validator:
    > javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
    > uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')
    >
    > Some info:
    > http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/moveabletype/fblog/archives/000059.html


    I do not like using javascript because those who disable it cannot access
    the page.
    I often disable it myself when I navigate on the internet!
    Besides, as I already tried to explain, I got a code for the link showing
    that my page validates which has a space before uri.
    For example
    http://validator.w3.org/check?
    uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com%2Fit%2Fsvezia.html
    which I corrected.
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...charset=(detect automatically)&doctype=Inline

    Also, as far as I understood, Bruce was in favour of HTML icons, wasn´t he?
    Bruce, did you change your mind about that?

    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Sam Hughes Guest

    "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
    news:2ueTc.100795$:

    >
    > "Sam Hughes" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:Xns9544DE63667D3hughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
    >> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
    >> news:%11Tc.458$:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >> > news:Xns954487B798481jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    >> >
    >> >> If you ask me, and even if you don't, this is yet another
    >> >> evidence for the fact that "Valid HTML!" and "Valid CSS!" icons
    >> >> are worse than useless. (For other evidence see
    >> >> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon )
    >> >
    >> > Well. may-be that someone from W3C has something to say about the
    >> > opinion you have expressed.
    >> > I find it useful to have the icons because they let me check
    >> > faster if the page which I have updated is still valid or not.

    >>
    >> You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
    >> careful about word wrap:
    >> javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
    >> (location))
    >>
    >> CSS Validator:
    >> javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat
    >> or? uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')
    >>
    >> Some info:
    >> http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/moveabletype/fblog/archives/000059.h
    >> tml

    >
    > I do not like using javascript because those who disable it cannot
    > access the page.


    I am talking about a _Favorite_ or a _Bookmark_ that only gets placed
    into _your_ browser's bookmarks! This has nothing to do with putting
    javascript on your web page; it is an easy way to use the validator
    which eliminates a reason for the W3c icons.


    --
    How to make it so visitors can't resize your fonts:
    <http://www.rpi.edu/~hughes/www/wise_guy/unresizable_text.html>
     
    Sam Hughes, Aug 14, 2004
    #15
  16. "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

    > And who should decide which opinions lack reasonable arguments?


    You. You put their icons on your page, or you don't. You can read their
    arguments and see that they are bogus - my document just tries to help
    you see that.

    > That does not mean though that the icon and the validator are useless.


    I didn't say they are useless. They are worse than useless. There's a big
    difference.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 14, 2004
    #16
  17. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns95455F82B6276jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    >
    > > And who should decide which opinions lack reasonable arguments?

    >
    > You. You put their icons on your page, or you don't. You can read their
    > arguments and see that they are bogus - my document just tries to help
    > you see that.
    >
    > > That does not mean though that the icon and the validator are useless.

    >
    > I didn't say they are useless. They are worse than useless. There's a big
    > difference.


    I think that they are useful although they are not perfect.
    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 14, 2004
    #17
  18. "Sam Hughes" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns9544E1E6CC0A3hughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
    > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote in
    > news:2ueTc.100795$:
    > >> You can create a bookmark or favorite with the following code. Be
    > >> careful about word wrap:
    > >> javascript:void(location='http://validator.w3.org/check?uri='+escape
    > >> (location))
    > >>
    > >> CSS Validator:
    > >> javascript:void(location='http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat
    > >> or? uri='+escape(location)+'&warning=1&profile=css2')
    > >>
    > >> Some info:
    > >> http://www.fjordaan.uklinux.net/moveabletype/fblog/archives/000059.h
    > >> tml

    > >
    > > I do not like using javascript because those who disable it cannot
    > > access the page.

    >
    > I am talking about a _Favorite_ or a _Bookmark_ that only gets placed
    > into _your_ browser's bookmarks! This has nothing to do with putting
    > javascript on your web page; it is an easy way to use the validator
    > which eliminates a reason for the W3c icons.



    And where should the code be placed?
    Does the licence agreeement for the use of IE let users modify the browsers?
    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    http://www.italymap.dk
    http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/willkommen.html
     
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 14, 2004
    #18
  19. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

    > And where should the code be placed?
    > Does the licence agreeement for the use of IE let users modify the browsers?


    You don't need to modify the browsers. The Javascript is simply added as a
    bookmark.

    For example, you can add a bookmark that points to "http://www.google.com/",
    right?

    You can also add a bookmark that points to "javascript:resizeTo(100,100);".

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Aug 14, 2004
    #19
  20. "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:

    > I think that they are useful although they are not perfect.


    As you like it, but that does not make them useful. All claims about the
    usefulness of the Valid HTML! icons have been proven incorrect. In fact,
    all the purported uses can be proven to be _harmful_.

    Strangely, after _every_ purported use has been disproved, people _still_
    keep saying "well, they are maybe not perfect, but they are useful!".
    It is hard to understand this as other than a strange form of
    religiousness - iconolatry.

    (The W3C is probably too proud to admit this, after a long period of
    propaganda. But you need not be.)

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Arthur T. Murray

    Re: Java and robots

    Arthur T. Murray, Oct 11, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    470
    Arthur T. Murray
    Oct 11, 2003
  2. Daniel Vesma
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,545
    Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
    Jul 2, 2003
  3. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Re: Checking links and robots.

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Aug 14, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    372
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    Aug 14, 2004
  4. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Robots <h1> <h2> and title

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    419
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    Nov 27, 2004
  5. Tim w

    meta robots and robots txt

    Tim w, May 22, 2014, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    154
Loading...

Share This Page