Re: lynx-dev new version of structured description ... patch

[Vlad Harchev]

On Thu, 20 May 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > >  IMO lynx_help/lynxcfg/*.html are worth including in the pre5 even
> > > without support for LYNXSETTINGSTATUS:// so lynx-devers and users will 
> > > check
> > > them.
> > Sure, agree (where Tom?).
> 
> I've already spoken more than my own share, so I only ask that people
> try these files out and give their opinions.  This is not "yelling from
> the bleachers;" it is a very important part of the development process.
> Once something gets into the distribution it is next to impossible to
> clean it out if it becomes obsolete or is no longer maintained.  My

  The remaining part of paragraph fo your message seems to be off-topic - the
quote of the message you replied proposes to include *.html files from that
patch, there is no notion about support for LYNXSETTINGSTATUS:// url type
(that you consider cryptic). 
  As for htmls, IMO their presense makes lynx more end-user friendly. I bet
not more than 7% of lynx users know what regular expression is - so they can't
run searches on lynx.cfg effectively. If user wishes to change some aspect of
lynx functionality, s/he has to read entire lynx.cfg several times only to
decide whether such change can be done in theory. Categorization of settings
(that was made in cattoc.html) helps this a lot.
  As for C code, IMO we should provide that functionality (may be not in
2.8.2), but it adds luxury to lynx users. Peoples from WinDOS world are used
to this. Other can just avoid using that page.    

> evaluation remains despite the rebuttals that there is no focus on the
> intended user: for the end user (even ADVANCED mode) it is too cryptic
> and technical, for the sysadm or self-installer it is redundant; thus
> it adds nothing that cannot already be gained by visiting the `=' page.
>  
> If it is really as good as the author says, it will last, will be
> incorporated into the next release, and through trial and criticism
> will become a better product.  Why the rush?
> 
> __Henry
> 
 
 Please don't treat this message as yet another proposal to include entire
patch to 2.8.2.
 But I still wondering, why don't include *.html files in 2.8.2 right now? I
found them very useful. But I also don't insist on it.

 I've placed a "demo version" of this patch at my homepage. Please see my
other message in this thread for full description.

 Best regards,
  -Vlad