[kw:]
> > it. Does anyone (other than the author, perhaps) find the lynx.cfg-
> > generated HTML useful in its current state?
>
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Henry Nelson wrote:
> I wasted an entire month fighting that battle. It's a lost cause.
Your battle seemed to be against adding the mechanisms at all.
I take no position on that (especially now); but given that it's
there, my question is, does the content and organization make sense?
(I have seen Leonid's patches now, haven't looked at them in any
detail, I am glad he is working on it.)
> > I'll make a proposal for reorganizin the Options Menu if nobody else
> > does.
>
> Would it be possible to get rid of or somehow re-do that message,
> "(options marked with (!) will not be saved)?"
Changing that isn't part of what I had in mind.
I think we have to accept, certainly for now, that some options get
saved and some don't. Given that fact, I find it better to make this
visible. But I'm certainly not convinced that the way I chose to do
this is the best one. It's just that nobody has made a better proposal,
as far a I know.
> Perhaps all of the
> ones marked (!) could be lumped together.
That's one idea, but (for now) I don't think it makes for a
logical ordering. (I may just try what it would look like.
Fell welcome to try, too!)
> Also, what does that
> mean -- the change will take effect only in the present session,
> and will not be saved in .lynxrc? I'm not sure that would be clear
> to all users.
What else could it mean? I really still don't understand why you
dislike it so much. Is the wording wrong? How _can_ it be made
clearer?
> Is that "Visited Pages" thingee working? If not, it sure would be
> nice to simply can it.
I haven't tested the current incarnation.
> I don't understand the need for toggles like "HTML error recovery (!),"
> which already have a key assigned to them, to be on the options page.
Well, that _is_ debateable. We can start another thread about it if
you like...
Part of the answer is probably historical precedence.
You may want to mime old CHANGES entries, maybe the reveal some
insight int why Fote thought that e.g. 'Raw/CJK' mode should be in
the 'o'ptions menu.
But if a variant of the 'o'ptions menu that excludes some of the
current options makes more sense to you, you could suggest an option
for that (compile time, lynx.cfg, and/or settable from the 'o'ptions
menu? :)).
> (Or does it do something ^V doesn't?)
No.
> There are way to many categories. Since there is a blank line between
> each group, there is an awful lot of space being used for headings.
> Maybe have at least 5 items before creating a group?
Maybe a matter of taste, but I'd rather see groupings that make sense
than looking too much at the size of groups.
Klaus
