[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev nothing changes/no way to save changes on O)ption page

From: Henry Nelson
Subject: Re: lynx-dev nothing changes/no way to save changes on O)ption page
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:01:21 +0900 (JST)

> I'm not sure I can keep the two roles (U or D) apart.
> I don't know why dropping "forms only" would be better.  It just makes
> the choices more unsymmetric.

I think your arguments are more convincing than mine.  The only benefit of
having a strict either/or compile option is that the command-line option
and the toggle in lynx.cfg could be done away with.  Since I am of the
opinion that so much configurability has been added to Lynx that it has
become confusing, this benefit seemed to outweigh the inconvenience of
not being able to have both menu types in a single binary.

> I agree with your other points: --options=(forms|menu|both) [add none :)]
> would be nicer.  It's up to Tom though.  I don't know the details how

Yes, it is beyond my capabilities to help.  (I could/would do the either/or
proposal, but a "majority" of lynxdev would have to speak up in favor of it.)

> Full agreement on 2).

Okay.  So can someone give me a straight answer, what does "Please note that
a few users with broken curses may have problems with popup forms fields."
refer to?  I would be glad to submit a patch to remove it from one or the
other of the descriptions (which one?), or from both descriptions (probably
the best since it seems to be just confusing the issue at hand -- the choice
between old or new).

> Btw. "menu" (as the alternative to "forms") is also quite confusing
> (that's not new) - after all the Forms Options Page calls itself
> "Options Menu" in the title and header!  Some better terminology would
> be, umm, better, any ideas?

Very true.  A little brainstorming is in order perhaps.  One idea:

        forms-based-options     "Options Page"
        fixed-menu-options      "Options Menu"

and then make it consistent throughout.

> Btw going back to the origin of this thread (subject line) thanks
> for confirming that the disabling worked - since you couldn't find

So, as you originally pointed out, total disabling doesn't make a lot
of sense (although paranoid anonymous guys might like it -- gives me
ideas :) :), so this needs to be fixed (or if intended, needs to be
described properly).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]