>> Thanks for the reply. Just to be explicit -- is "experimental" a >> euphemism for "unimplemented", or is there some other reason why I >> couldn't make it work?
> not-fully-implemented. I've spent some time on it, have used it to upload > files to a couple of html validators. For text files, it's probably ok > (some minor issues), but for binary files it uses mime encoding, which > both isn't 100% complete, and not all hosts recognize it. Then I'm still not clear why I couldn't use it, since I presume a CSS file or an HTML file (I tried the W3's HTML validator too) are in the relevant sense text files. But in both cases the server gave an error clearly showing it didn't think it had been sent a file at all. Is there for example some peculiarity to the form in which one should type the file name? By the way -- > I've noticed that I have to press enter an extra time to get it to allow > me to edit that field. Perhaps there's some tweak needed in the code to > make it act more like the other fields (I hadn't thought of that). Yes, as they stand they're like "unactivated" text fields, i.e. the kind you get with the -tna command line option (I don't know if this remark is helpful). ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
