> 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?
THAT was the reason for the battle. If I had won, you wouldn't have
to ask your question :).
> 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,
Agreed. I'll keep it in mind. Unfortunately my one track mind wants
savable options to be done by one _mechanism_, and temporary changes to
be done by another mechanism.
> > 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?
My point is simply that I don't think all users are aware that .lynxrc
and the O)ption Menu are related, _sometimes_. You're probably right
that the wording is fine, and needs to be said -- it's the mixing of
the two kinds of options on one page that is throwing me off (above).
I know you don't like me to compare with other browsers out there, but
forgive me again. MS spent a lot of money researching how to make its
IE easily configurable by the average surfer. I have a Japanese one
so I can't give you the exact English name for the commands, but if you
have one available somewhere look at Tools(T) => Internet Options(O).
I think the "tab" layout and the [OK] [Cancel] [Use(A)] buttons at the
bottom might give you some ideas about how Lynx could have a better
organization of its options. Look especially at the contents of the
tab at the far right (something like "Detailed settings"). Even though
Japanese is not my native language, I find it rather easy to read
through a _lot_ of settings, find what I want and make changes quickly
and efficiently. Quite plainly: I don't need to think!
> > 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
Exactly. Doesn't really need another thread. Just do it. No need
for history to make history of Lynx.
> > (Or does it do something ^V doesn't?)
>
> No.
Isn't that one way Lynx competes: a single keystroke does it. Why
does someone want to punch in a sequence of keys to do what one key
will do?
> Maybe a matter of taste, but I'd rather see groupings that make sense
> than looking too much at the size of groups.
I thought in part we were talking about taste. Anyway, being able to
recognize a compact group quickly (hierarchal structure) and make
changes quickly (radio buttons) might "make sense."
__Henry
