On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:
>
> >[...]
> > 2) The classification of lynx.cfg options that is used for the
> > HTML generated from it, i.e. all the ".h1" added to lynx.cfg, is
> > illogical, unsystematic, and often just plain wrong. [...]
>
> Probably these options would seem useless for technically educated person,
> but I hoped that such classification would be helpful for novices. Just
> imagine brave person that just installed lynx on Win* (grep is not available
> there, and seems some PCs with Win* will be shipping without keyboard soon :)
> or for some unix without previous experience with www technologies (gateways,
> cookies) - and that person wishes to configure lynx (most probably colors).
Yes, I understand the reasoning.
I think that *especially* for unsophisticated users the current incarnation
is (was?) misleading.
> For such person category "internal behaviour" should clearly indicate that
> "no user servicable options inside".
There are no options like that. Or certainly there shouldn't be.
If there's an option for it, then it should make sense to change
it, at least sometimes.
If you mean "don't change this unless you know what you're doing" then
the text should say that, not something else.
> Perhaps categories' descriptions should be tweaked to make things clearer, and
Yes, please...
> probably "internal behaviour" should be renamed "networking and misc.
> options" - seems most of the settings are *proxy ones.
Last I looked at it, it seemed "grabbag" would be more appropriate.
I agree with Leonid(?), proxy stuff should have its own section.
> So, IMO it's better to have such classification than nothing.
>
> I'm open to your (and others') suggestions on and corrections of
> categorization of lynx.cfg options.
As time permits... (I hope some others will also look at it and
make concrete suggestions).
Klaus
