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

[Klaus Weide]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:

>   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 :)

Yea, that's the trouble with you.

Look at the subject line - the request is still there, just as you put
it.  Now you act like it's not your business, like you never asked.


>   Nobody posted a request to explain more about psrc stylesheets, their syntax
> and use. I treat this as "nobody has problems reading description" :)

I just did.

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > Anyway,
> >   HTMLSRC_COMM:B I:!I !B
> > (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? :-)

No.

>   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
> >   HTMLSRC_HREF:<B>LINK</B>:
> > 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).

Well - you are the inventor of sub-HTML.  Just under a syntax that makes
it less obvious, so crypto-sub-HTML.

I was just trying to discuss the possibility to add text, too, in
addition to tags.

> Normal
> (ie DefautlStyle.c-like ) stylesheets won't contain any html.

A style for <NOTE> with a configurable string ("Note:", or "",
something completely different).  A style for <IMG> with "Image:" or
"[IMAGE]" and so on.   Those are the kind of thing I was thinking of.

As I said, it doesn't make too much sense for -prettysrc source
viewing.  But you implemented that (not exactly trivial)
associate-a-lexeme-with- some-markup stuff.  Seems to me that could be
used in some kind of stylesheet way for "real" text, not just for
source colorization.  Just a vague feeling.  But it might be a pity
to let that effort be wasted on only source prettifying.

>   Klaus, IMO we should concentrate on something else (eg table rendering).

How about, documenting what's there in an understandable way.


   Klaus