On 11/01/2010 11:35 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
yes, i'm aware of it. do you propose some alternative?
I had the idea to look for a browser and record that separately. But it
wouldn't fit into the normal viewer stuff.
i see. you have my ok for both alternatives - disabling it
On 11/01/2010 11:35 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
yes, i'm aware of it. do you propose some alternative?
I had the idea to look for a browser and record that separately. But it
wouldn't fit into the normal "viewer" stuff.
i see. you have my ok for both alternatives - disabling
Richard Heck wrote:
Pavel, I think you introduced this in connection with
InsetHyperlink::viewTarget(). But it seems wrong to me. There's no
particular reason to think that the URL in that case will actually be of
type HTML, or that the viewer defined for HTML will be able to handle it. I
On 11/01/2010 10:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Pavel, I think you introduced this in connection with
InsetHyperlink::viewTarget(). But it seems wrong to me. There's no
particular reason to think that the URL in that case will actually be of
type HTML, or that the viewer
Richard Heck wrote:
yes, i'm aware of it. do you propose some alternative?
I had the idea to look for a browser and record that separately. But it
wouldn't fit into the normal viewer stuff.
i see. you have my ok for both alternatives - disabling it or rework
the stuff. the security
Richard Heck wrote:
> Pavel, I think you introduced this in connection with
> InsetHyperlink::viewTarget(). But it seems wrong to me. There's no
> particular reason to think that the URL in that case will actually be of
> type HTML, or that the viewer defined for HTML will be able to handle it.
On 11/01/2010 10:21 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Pavel, I think you introduced this in connection with
InsetHyperlink::viewTarget(). But it seems wrong to me. There's no
particular reason to think that the URL in that case will actually be of
type HTML, or that the viewer
Richard Heck wrote:
>> yes, i'm aware of it. do you propose some alternative?
>>
>>
> I had the idea to look for a browser and record that separately. But it
> wouldn't fit into the normal "viewer" stuff.
i see. you have my ok for both alternatives - disabling it or rework
the stuff. the
