[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Klaus Weide
Subject: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:51:55 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Philip Webb wrote:

> 991117 Henry Nelson wrote: 
> >> Well, I can typ 'g lynxcfg:', maybe that's good enough...
> > Remove the "maybe", and you have my sentiments.
> maybe (smile) a good point, provided it is documented somewhere,
> but it isn't: not in Users Guide or Supported URLs.
> would either of you care to submit a small docs patch (HN KW)?

Uhm, let the inventor of LYNXCFG: do it... :)

> meanwhile, i have added a note in LHFB: 

> BTW i assumed
> users of sysadmin's Lynxes have access to this feature: is that correct?

If you mean lynx users on multiuser systems -
as we've just discussed, it cannot be compiled "out".  Only its range
of features (and usefulness) can be limited at compile time.
So yes, those users would have access to it.

Unless -restrictions are applies that forbid it (-anonymous etc.),
but that's again a different situation, and I assume you don't mean 
it with "sysadmin's Lynxes".

Well, if there is ever a situation where a guest account setup would
disallow 'g'oto, but still want to allow LYNXCFG: acces, then we
might have another small problem.


But *if* typing 'g lynxcfg:' becomes an (or The) official/suggested way of
accessing that page - should it be changed "LYNXCFG:" -> "lynxcfg:" ?
Mayby not.  But Supported URLs makes the destinction ("lynx...:" -
documented individually some way, vs. "LYNX...:" documented only
summarily as "internal URLs".


reply via email to

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