Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch

[David Combs]

> From address@hidden Mon Aug 17 01:00:27 1998
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 03:59:09 -0400
> From: address@hidden (Larry W. Virden)
> ...
> I vote against trying to accomodate all the files written by authors
> without knowledge of HTML that are out there - I've seen too much
> trash.  I don't mean that lynx should refuse to handle them - proper
> error handling should result in _something_ being output.  But I am
> technically against changing lynx to make the default be to display
> bad html correctly at the 'expense' of incorrectly handling what is
> _technically_ correct, based on the current literal interpretation
> of the specs.  If there are felt to be inconsistencies in the specs,
> then I am in favor of the discoverer of those inconsistencies changing
> the HTML specifications to clarify, while the code writing folk do the
> best they can to accomodate some sort of consistent behavior in lynx.
> Having lynx change the way various things display each release, with
> the exception of fixing outright bugs, seems to me to be a bad precedence.
> It makes the job of convincing the public to include code for proper
> lynx display that much harder.
> 

Good points, ... BUT:

Maybe (who wants to implement this?) an "instant" second
display-mode:

(1) Normal: as Larry suggests.

(2) But, if the page looks just horrible, have, maybe via some
control-char, ability to switch into a "try to make
idiot html look reasonable" mode, for THAT doc only, ie
non-sticky.

(Or maybe sticky when looking at page from same site?
No, not a good idea).