[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_IN
Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE
Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:44:07 +0900 (JST)
> Maybe he could remind us once more.
I'd prefer not to dwell on it since the developers appear to be
committed to duplicating the lynx.cfg file in html format. If and when
the hypertext configuration file becomes truly useful, then my opinions
really won't matter anymore.
Basically, I find keeping related options named with the same top-level
option name easier, not harder, to read and understand. The sub-option
notion is easier for me to visualize in my mind what the configuration
scheme will do for me when I actually apply it and use it in Lynx.
People have different ways of thinking, so it's not much of an argument.
I also think it would help prevent like options from getting separated
from each other in the lynx.cfg file (I believe there was at one time
an example with the COOKIES options). Finally, having top-level/sub
option categorization in place in the lynx.cfg file to begin with
precludes the need for the directives like ".h2" that have been put into
the distribution lynx.cfg, and which IMO just make it that much more
confusing to wade through and edit. Afterall, there is no "lynx.cfg
editor," nor is there a "lynx.cfg forms-web page." The way to configure
is to read and manually edit. (Different, but related topic: I still use
my 14-year-old, 8MB Sun workstation and my 16MB NEC PC98-note -- anyone who
knows these machines knows what happens when you try to edit a 100kB file.
Can't. Means anyone configuring had better know how to use head, tail,
grep and sed, and who knows what else. Easier to buy a new machine.)