For some reason this message didn't seem to make it to the list, so I'm resending it.
Chuck On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:49:12PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > the TRST code is producing the offset cells - which are odd to look at, > but do give a general sense of the layout. Suppressing that undoes a > lot of code - for your purpose it would be simpler to turn that feature > off. Are you sure about that? From what I've been able to tell in comparing the non-patched version with the patched version, and from what I understand of what the TRST code is supposed to be doing, I'm getting the full benefit of the TRST code with the patch, and I don't really want to turn that feature off. I'm not so sure I really want full table support, anyway, after having seen what links and w3m do with pages that abuse it for layout, because you often end up with text filling 1/4 to 1/2 the width of the screen, and the other 1/2 to 3/4 of the screen going to waste because there's nothing there once you scroll down a page or two, but when tables are used correctly, for their intended purpose, it's often impossible to make sense out of what you're seeing without at least TRST, and even then, sometimes you can't make sense out of it because, presumably, the table isn't "simple" enough for TRST to do its thing. Also, if you look at the block of code that I disabled, you will notice that there is a section in there which acts differently if SH_EX is defined (isn't that for Japanese?), and the SH_EX behavior is different than the non-SH_EX behavior. It's been awhile since I actually followed it through to see where the no_table_center variable is set, but I believe defining SH_EX will do basically what my patched version is doing. I'm not sure why that section is #ifdef'ed for SH_EX, when it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what language you're using. Chuck ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
