On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Klaus Weide wrote:
> 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.
Do you think all sections (or sectioning) makes no sense or some particular
section and its description? Please describe you ideas/opinions in more
detail. As for now - it looks like you are describing your impression you've
got half a year ago.
> > 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.
Of course I meant this.
> > 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.
Then we will have only 4 or 5 options that fall into "internal behaviour"
section - this confuses me.
> > 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
>
Best regards,
-Vlad
