[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Documentation requirements: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:
From: |
T.E.Dickey |
Subject: |
Re: Documentation requirements: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS: |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:50:24 -0500 (EST) |
>
> From: Philip Webb <address@hidden>
> 991119 Klaus Weide wrote:
> >>PW> a good point, provided it is documented somewhere,
> >>PW> but it isn't: not in Users Guide or Supported URLs.
> >KW> let the inventor of LYNXCFG: do it... :)
> PW>yes, if we all accept that authors of features & their modifications
> PW>should be required to document them (allowing for language difficulties),
> PW>but i hesitate to ask TD to take on the task of doing the requiring.
>
> Tom, I won't hesitate to at least _ask_ your opinion - what do you
> think about the idea that before a new or changed feature is accepted
> requiring the contributor also provide documentation?
given that it would be a radical change in policy, I don't think it would
work out.
> Larry W. Virden <URL: mailto:address@hidden>
--
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
- Re: Documentation requirements: Re: lynx-dev LYNXCFG:, LYNXCOMPILEOPTS:,
T.E.Dickey <=