Michael Osipov

> @michael-o Not sure what you mean. For me, both URLs are accessible. But the URL including the `#` are is interpreted differently by the javadoc tool (see my first...

> Whether the resources are valid or not is not the point in this case. > > It is important that the Maven plugin and the Javadoc tool interpret the...

What I can offer is to broaden the validation scope of the `validateLinks` paramater not to touch URLs at all, instead of getting them and not validating content... maybe that...

> I think the reason why this has been done this way is to not break the build on invalid links. If the javadoc tool cannot read the URL it...

Prepare a test branch for you guys...

Please try a custom build from this PR: https://github.com/apache/maven-javadoc-plugin/pull/308

Darn, while working on the PR I have found a real bug in a PR which was not visible before...

> Just looking at your PR raises the same question again (for me): Assuming the URL `https://assertj.github.io/doc/#assertj-core/apidocs/package-list` and its content are perfectly valid, the Maven plugin forwards the URL to...

> But then the Maven plugin should consider all URLs containing a fragment identifier as invalid an not forward them to the javadoc tool. That would solve this issue. How...

> > > But then the Maven plugin should consider all URLs containing a fragment identifier as invalid an not forward them to the javadoc tool. That would solve this...