[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Multibookmark patch
From: |
Steve Holmes |
Subject: |
Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Multibookmark patch |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:26:22 -0700 (MST) |
The only thought I can share so far concerning multiple bookmarks might be
what I observe when using Netscrape. It allows to build a "hierarchy" of
bookmarks in the same bookmarks file simply by creating nested headers.
However, when lynx displays this file, I don't suppose it would work out
with the desired effects achieved by having separate bookmark files.
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Foteos Macrides wrote:
> address@hidden (Drazen Kacar) wrote:
> >Filip M Gieszczykiewicz wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings. Sorry for taking this out of context. I was wondering:
> >> since you did not object so strongly to my multi-bookmarks patch,
> >> does that mean that there is even a small sliver of a chance that
> >> it will make it into official release? I've used the current version
> >> for a few weeks now and it appears to work well. Some people,
> >> sys-admins included, complain that if it's not "official" they don't
> >> want to apply it... so it would greatly help if it was, indeed,
> >> official. Besides, as long as the user is "Novice" it works just
> >> like it does now - even "Advanced" has that option... just has
> >> some room for expansion.
> >>
> >> Pretty please? [seriously]
> >
> >I've looked at the code two revisions ago and I don't know how it looks now,
> >but here are my objections to that code:
> >
> > - having number of multi bookmarks in #define is no good. You were just
> > dumping a menu on the screen regardless of screen size.
> > - there was no testing of screen width for printing out particular bookmark
> > definition. Just dumping it out and hoping that screen width is big
> > enough.
> >
> >There were some others, but I can't remember any more.
>
> But to answer the original question, generically, the
> multibookmark patch is *not* it the same category as the patch
> for making the current document's URL in the showinfo display
> a forward link, with all the complications and overhead that
> invokes, when all it ultimately achieves can already be done,
> cleanly, simply by pressing any of the PREV_DOC command synonyms
> (e.g., left-arrow). It would not be in the Lynx community's
> long-term best interest to include misguided patches that
> would move Lynx back toward a hodge-podge of ill-coordinated
> code.
>
> It is highly desireable for Lynx to support a hierarchy
> of bookmark files directly, rather than just indirectly via
> hand editing of a single bookmark file, or by manually entering
> each bookmark file's name via the 'o'ption menu.
>
> It's not clear, at this time, how best to achieve that
> objective, and the best way can't be determined until it's more
> clear whether any major changes in the Lynx API will be undertaken
> soon, and in turn how to redesign the now overloaded 'o'ptions
> handling. In the meantime, that patch still needs work, and
> you're doing a good job of supporting it, plus gaining hands-on
> experience developing and supporting Lynx, so another pressing
> need (more people who have hands-on experience both developing
> and supporting Lynx) *is* being served.
>
> A third category was the patch for allowing 301 or 302
> redirection to be treated as a 303. It would have been better
> (IMHO) to keep that as a patch which extends the base of people
> with hands-on experience developing and supporting Lynx, rather
> than my just taking it as it stood and including it with the
> minimally required tweaks. But... without it the basic objective
> of "better than nothing" information sharing would not be met by
> Lynx v2.6 for a still goodly number of deployed CGI scripts.
>
> Fote
>
> =========================================================================
> Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
> address@hidden 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> =========================================================================
> ;
> ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a mail message to address@hidden
> ; with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
> ; quotation marks) on a line by itself.
> ;
>
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a mail message to address@hidden
; with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
; quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;
- Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Multibookmark patch, Foteos Macrides, 1996/11/03
- Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Multibookmark patch,
Steve Holmes <=
- LYNX-DEV Bookmarks - a better idea (?), Walter Skorski, 1996/11/04
- Re: LYNX-DEV Bookmarks - a better idea (?), Filip M Gieszczykiewicz, 1996/11/05
- Re: LYNX-DEV Bookmarks - a better idea (?), Audin Malmin, 1996/11/05
- Re: LYNX-DEV Bookmarks - a better idea (?), Walter Skorski, 1996/11/05
- Re: LYNX-DEV Bookmarks - a better idea (?), Filip M Gieszczykiewicz, 1996/11/05
- Re: LYNX-DEV Bookmarks - a better idea (?), Larry W. Virden, x2487, 1996/11/06
- LYNX-DEV why not use shift-V to access multiple bookmarks list?, gregory j. rosmaita, 1996/11/06
- Re: LYNX-DEV why not use shift-V to access multiple bookmarks list?, Larry W. Virden, x2487, 1996/11/06
- Re: LYNX-DEV why not use shift-V to access multiple bookmarks list?, gregory j. rosmaita, 1996/11/07
- Re: LYNX-DEV why not use shift-V to access multiple bookmarks list?, Larry W. Virden, x2487, 1996/11/07