Re: lynx-dev patch to add description of extended INCLUDE syntax to lynx.cfg

[Henry Nelson]

> 1) It can't be done for sake of backward compatibility

Please explain why multiple include files are necessary for backward
compatibility.  Or the reverse of the question, why a single include file
prevents backward compatibility.

> 2) It's powerful thing and it's mostly targeted to ISPs that provide "lynx
>    account" to their users - without this setting, user was unable to select

I doubt that you will find many ISPs that are so kind.

>    colors (if compiled without lss) since COLOR setting is initialized in
>    lynx.cfg - with this setting, sysadmin can allow inclusion of user-written

If the user has shell access, this is not true.  The user can have a complete
lynx.cfg with ALL of the settings in his $HOME and invoke lynx with the -cfg=
command-line option.

>    and some other settings that are key for security like TRUSTED_EXEC will be
>    safely ignored. So extending INCLUDE syntax allows user to fine tune lynx
>    by settings not only in .lynxrc, but by some in lynx.cfg, with security in
>    mind. If you as sysadmin INCLUDE user-written file without extended syntax,
>    then you have a risk of havving security hole. So, without extended INCLUDE
>    syntax sysadmin from the following 2 way
>       a) provide a user the ability to control lynx settings by including
>          user-defined configuration file (making security hole)
>       b) restricting user from fine-tuning lynx making it more pleasant to 
>          work with lynx for user
>   definitely was choosing b)
>   Now with extended include syntax it's possible to choose a) without 
> security 
Lynx has always provided exactly what you are describing here, just by a
different mechanism.  Security risk features have never been allowed to be
overridden by defines in lynx.cfg from the compile-time selections.  Thus
an ISP could provide whatever level of security he/she were comfortable with
by editing userdefs.h and/or selecting configure options.

> 3) It's not targeted for people that use their computer personally.

!

>  If you have found the description too complex (and understood what that
> syntax means) please write another - I don't insist on my description of

No.  It is your baby.  Although I doubt you would listen to anything I
say, I would suggest that you consider prefixing your explanation of
the feature with a comment that it is intended mainly for ISPs, and that
general users may ignore it.

>  Better think when you post anything. Seems that you are reading and writing
> to lynx-dev due to absence of work - seems you are just adminning. Please
> think carefully about each feature that was added to lynx (and then 

I am truly sorry you cannot accept my criticisms in a constructive manner.
(I have a sneaking suspicion that you will find that I am one of the few
who has thought in depth about the utility and repercussions of this
feature.)  You're on your own now.  Good luck.

__Henry