On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:30:42PM -0500, Chuck Martin wrote: > 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
reasonably sure - we seem to be talking about the same thing. There are other things in TRST than that, of course. > 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. I can look at that (right now I'm working on tin, for a small patch, and expect to go back to lynx after that - I'm moving rather slowly because of a day-job project that's eating a lot of time). -- Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
