Re: lynx-dev internal links

[dickey]

> >> > The gist is that Lynx can be configured to recognize links 
> >> > within a document that don't behave the way Fote interpreted 
> >> > someone's draft 
> > 
> >"someone"?! 
>  
> Ah, all that stuff about standards 'n RFC's 'n stuff is just 
> intellectual gymnastics, anyway.  We don't need to worry about 
some of it is - RFC's seem to have lost their original intent, which is
a request for _comment_.  There's far too many that don't get comment
and (like the IRS's "regulations") get treated as a "law".

but my point is that it was described as a "draft" - the applicable
dictionary definition here seems to be

        'preliminary sketch or outline'

> it.  So, is that Fielding guy anybody important? 
doesn't matter (wasn't my point).  Both sides plastered the other with words
without showing working examples, while both cited the same authority.

I left the code in for 2.8 to allow people to see Klaus' viewpoint (if they
read the INSTALLATION document).  But if no one's adopted it, it's time to
move on.

> I haven't read to the end of the thread yet, but so far no 
> one has mentioned that the (possibly) definitive discussion 
> seems to be the 1997-11-03 entry in the CHANGES2.8 file. 
right - so (to the original point).  Shall we retain the feature, or not?
(Henry's response is still technically ambiguous - he stated lack of
support, but didn't specify which alternative ;-).
  
> I assume you're still playing around with lynx's mail 
> function. 
(I assume "you're" refers to Henry - I hope so too)
  
> If lynx generates mail like this (the busted Content-Type: was 
> particularly annoying), I nominate it to join news on Lynx-Lite's 
> ash heap of history.  I'd much rather see lynx call *real* 
> mail/news clients via, I assume, a refined and well-documented 
> EXTERN set up. 
>  
> Just my preference. 
>  
> --  
> Michael Warner  
> <address@hidden> 


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey