Re: lynx-dev new protocols

[Henry Nelson]

>   BROWSER_EXEC:
>   This would allow the user to give a named
>   command to Lynx; this might be needed because
[...]
>   MX:
>   This would be a shorthand for BROWSER_EXEC:

How are these significantly different from "lynxexec:" and the "J)ump page?"

There are already so many ways to execute commands while running Lynx, e.g.,
`!', `.', `D)ownload', `P)rint', mimecap, lynxcgi and pseudoproxies, that
it's a virtual nightmare for someone running a public-access Lynx to go
through and exercise all of them after a new release.  Unless we REALLY need,
and I mean NEED, more protocols can we try to use what we've already got more
efficiently?  TIA.

__Henry

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