[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: lynx-dev [PATCH] remove extension to EXTERNAL command, extend CERN r

From: Eduardo Chappa L.
Subject: Re: lynx-dev [PATCH] remove extension to EXTERNAL command, extend CERN rules support for mailto: URLs
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:32:02 -0700 (PDT)

*** Henry Nelson wrote in the Lynx list on Jul 11, 2000:

:) On some excellent day in the year 2000, John Smith wrote:
:) >   We can leave the code as is (i.e. with EXTERN_OR_ACTIVATE patch) - I 
:) > mind this (since I won't use it). But I expect complains from users stating
:) > that 'G' then 'enter' is not equal to 'enter'.
:) Why was this patch even submitted, and why is it to be left in?  
:) Are there no criteria at all about the amount of testing and
:) consideration of the pros and cons that a certain hack should
:) undergo before it is implanted?  When Eduardo submitted his patch,
:) it was turned down. 

Hmm are you talking about mailto: URIs? If so, I never submitted anything.
Actually I think I convinced most of the people at that time that this was
necessary to implement, I made clear at that time that I was not
submitting anything to this list. Given that now you understand this, it
could not have been turned down. Probably you are talking about another
patch, which I still use a lot, which was turned down because Mr. Klauss
did not appreciate it, but that had nothing to do with mailto:, it was way
more general than that and had nothing to do with EXTERNAL behavior
(although in some sense it did, but it was not meant to be related
directly to its behavior, it has nothing to do with what Vlad did). To
refresh your memory, the patch that was turned down introduced a key
called LYK_SCRIPT that in particular could be used  to rewrite the code
of a page, so that lynx could display it in a better way, what I never
said to anyone was that I was thinking of table support at that time, and
it had a few minor subproducts, which I presented as examples of the
behavior. Mr Klauss did not agree with the implementation, but I still
think the idea stands. In any case, I'm not discussing this point anymore,
I just want to make clear that mailto: support was discussed and I believe
I convinced people about its usefulness/need. If you want me I'll go
through the archives and find the thread.


; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden

reply via email to

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