[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lynx-dev removing HTMLSRC_* stuff: suggest a new setting name, pleas

From: Vlad Harchev
Subject: Re: lynx-dev removing HTMLSRC_* stuff: suggest a new setting name, please
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:49:07 +0400 (SAMT)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > > Then make it PRETTYSRC_SPEC, pretty please.
> > 
> >  Prefix PSRC itself is already used in several places to denote pretty 
> > source
> > view mode.
> That's too bad.
> But where?  I only see PSRCVIEW_NO_ANCHOR_NUMBERING in lynx.cfg, which
> could be renamed as well.  Variable and macro names in the code don't
> count here.

  OK. I don't insist on names of any psrc-related options (but I don't want to
do renaming myself) - do this if you wish :)
> That really doesn't cut it, unless you want this to be some kind or
> riddle or puzzle.  Just as I said - the term "internal markup" is
> never introduced or explained.
> We read about "styles" surrounding "lexemes" and learn that "tags"
> can "precede lexemes" and that somehow this option is for letting us
> decide how that is to happen.  But all this is in the context of some
> "internal html markup".  Well.  You should say what that is!
> After all, theses options (or, now: this option) are (/is) about
> styling the -prettysrc display.  A kind of style sheet.  It's not an
> expected thing that something like that is achieved by some kind of
> "internal html markup".
> An honest description should say something like "We are abusing HTML
> tags by generating an internal stream of them purely for the purpose
> or carrying presentational directives".  Or something like that.
> [Optionally add "but that's okay for us to do, because..." if you
> can come up with something fitting.]

  Nobody posted a request to explain more about psrc stylesheets, their syntax
and use. I treat this as "nobody has problems reading description" :)
> Anyway,
> (ignore that I'm still using the old form, please) really stands for
>   HTMLSRC_COMM:<B> <I>:</I> </B>
> doesn't it?  Why isn't it written that way?  It would make more sense
> and probably make the whole thing a bit more obvious.
> All you get by introducing your own abbreviated syntax for this, like
> you did, is saving on a bit of parsing code - which can't be that bad.
> (You could still require that this must be a minimal sub-HTML, only
> tags, no attributes etc.)

  Should I use SGML.c for this? :-)
  I thought that such syntax won't allow any misuse (ie raw text, or
entities). And of course parsing is simplified as much as possible. If user
wants to change psrc markup that badly, s/he would understand the syntax of 
psrc stylesheets.

> Using the abbreviated syntax may be shortsighted.  If you used a
> HTML-like form instead for the specifications, you could extend the
> format to include arbitrary fixed text strings, for example.  Like
> Well that doesn't make too much sense for -prettysrc source viewing
> alone, but would be nice for more general styles.

  When could it count? With my (rich?) imagination I can't imagine where
sub-HTML could be useful in lynx (even in features to be implemented). Normal
(ie DefautlStyle.c-like ) stylesheets won't contain any html. 
  Klaus, IMO we should concentrate on something else (eg table rendering).

 Best regards,

reply via email to

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