Re: lynx-dev Re: syntax change

[Philip Webb]

990301 Kim DeVaughn & Laura Eaves discussed:
KD> *I* would really like to see a way to avoid having to enter "g" at all,
KD> since most often, I want to move to a link, before activating it.
LE> I agree the 123 and 123g syntax is backward.
LE> This was discussed way back when Klaus first implemented 123g.
LE>  123  (with no g) was left unchanged for backward compatibility.
KD> Why should users of today's lynx be *forced* to live with a paradigm
KD> from the past, for no reason other than "backward compatibility"?
KD> Especially when there is a more "natural" paradigm available.
KD> you think it's "backwards", I think it's "backwards",
KD> and I believe I've seen comments from others
KD> that point to their thinking that it's "backwards" ...

well said!  backwards compatibility has not always been observed,
eg when occasionally someone has decided a new spec requires a change
in well-established behaviour: examples omitted to avoid distraction.

KD> ... so I guess I do think that an o(ption) is desirable.
KD> Too bad it wasn't o(ption)alized back then.
KD> I'm suggesting a realtime, user-configurable o(ption) screen option.
KD> Yes ... there are alot of options already.  Seems that is one
KD> of the hallmarks of "flexibility" ... esp in the "user interface" area.

one of the reasons for going over to an Options Form was to allow
for ever-increasing numbers of options: IMHO we should be planning
to replace  lynx.cfg  by Options Form entries (see earlier messages).

LE> Reversing the meaning of 123 and 123g would be too confusing
LE> now that people are used to using 123g.
KD> Not at all, since any one individual will only use one method,
KD> once they've tried them both, and settled on the one they prefer.
KD> That this continues to be "under discussion" argues
KD> against "people being used to" the current format.

a subtle but weighty point ...

LE> What do you think the interface should be?
KD> Nothing overly involved.  Just one option in the o(ption) screen/menu,
KD> under "user preferences", titled (say) "Numeric link selection format".
KD> Two alternatives named (say):
KD> "Backwardly compatible entry"  and  "Natural order entry"
 
looks good: maybe it's KD's turn to do the coding ... (smile)?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto