lynx-dev Re: Forms handling

[Kim DeVaughn]

On Thu, Jan 21, 1999, address@hidden (address@hidden) said:
|
| when you think it's stable enough, I'll put it in (ifdef'd).  my impression
| from your earlier posting was that you thought it was still too experimental.

Well ... the two patches that implement the original methodology seem to
be working as advertised, and could be #ifdef included, to provide some
additional functionality/testing/feedback.

Those two patches should be in the archives as:

  Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:21:03 -0800
  Message-ID: <address@hidden>
  Lines: 632

and

  Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 18:19:07 -0800
  Message-ID: <address@hidden>
  Lines: 223

and should be applied sequentially, in the above order (they were gen'd
against -dev.12, but apply properly to a -dev.14, with only a few minor
offsets, IIRC).


What I am doing *now*, is to try and pull the externally edited text back
into the page's data structures (expanding the form's textarea if needed),
so that the new text is rendered in the textarea, and could be edited/etc
in the usual manner, should one want to do so.

Ie, after returning from one's editor, there will be no way to tell just
how the text in the textarea was entered (other than the textarea perhaps
having more lines than were present originally).

That's coming along, but will be awhile yet, as other responsibilities do
intrude on my available time.  Hopefully, I'll have an initial cut using
the revised methodology within a couple weeks (but don't hold me to that
prediction :-) ).


Your call as to whether or not to ifdef in the original method.

/kim