Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinH
As far as I can tell from just eyeballing the code, the HasUndefinedURLFragments test code should properly handle this testcase as it detects empty filenames in URLs and assigns it to the filename being processed.
|
It's been a while since I looked at it, but I was under the same impression. It's the fragments that don't have corresponding id's that tends to mess things up (and HasUndefinedURLFragments was designed to warn about).
Not to say there might not be a bug in my code.
When playing with the OP's sample code, Sigil, indeed, does not choke on the #editorial frag/id. It chokes on the first #pagexx frag/id that's missing from the sample. In my experience, Sigil will handle splitting a file similar to this so long as every fragment has a matching id. It shouldn't matter if the filename is not included.
I fear the sample code isn't entirely representative of the specific warning message the OP is getting.