[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY"
From: |
Klaus Weide |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY" |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Jul 1999 05:31:25 -0500 (CDT) |
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Vlad Harchev wrote:
>
> Binding j. info to styles will require complete implementaion of style stack
> (since table elements can contain lists, parargaphs, etc).
We agree that the current (and ancient) implementation of 'style
stack' is incomplete. I would go further and say its use in HTML.c is
inconsistent, a mess, and nearly incomprehensible :).
So I don't blame you for working around it, rather than cleaning it up
and then using it. I still point out that such working-around for a
specific purpose makes things still more complicated, and is probably
how the mess came into existence in the first place.
> And according to the logic - all text with HT_LEFT alignment can be justified
> (except H[1-6]), so rather than changing each style definition in
> DefaultStyle.c I prefered to do this implicitly.
Another logic sez: All text with HT_LEFT alignment can NOT be justified, since
unjustified left-aligned text is the default style for the Web. Only where
the author explicitly said ALIGN="justify" should justification be applied.
Or at least, that should be one (the default) option for using/not-using
text justification. (one user stylesheet choice if you will)
You also justify, if "justification is ON", where the HTML explicitly
has ALIGN="left", and that really shouldn't be done.
[ ... ]
> I agree that implementing the things you propose will be a right thing. But
> seems that I won't have time to do anything revolutionary like that in next 2
> monthes for free. We have several directions lynx can be improved in, but all
> those additions will require a lot of time so seems noone will implement them
> in this year.
Cleaning up style usage in HTML.c isn't really revolutionary, and wouldn't
have immediately noticeable effects so it's not an attractive project, but
*someone* should do it...
> I have a very few spare time for anything, and most of the time took reading
> the lynx sources (in order to guess how it should be implemented). The
> shortest (and very strong) agrument I have is that alsmost 98% of the part
> that is relevant to justification is implementation of the justification of
> a given line in GridText.c:split_line. The logic that controls whether the
> given line can be justified can be (re)writtent in 10 minutes, so (at least)
> we can consider that part as a good codebase for right implementation of
> justification (the decision whether the current line will be justified is made
> in HText_appendCharacter(..) ).
Ok, I agree that that is a strong argument, and good news.
(I hope 10 min for you doesn't mean 10 days for eveyone else. :))
> But I still consider the logic selected as
> sufficient for any end-user.
On that I might disagree after testing it. (For this end-user,
I don't know much about others.)
Also we should ask whether it's a good rendering of marked-up text,
not just whether it is "sufficient" for an end-user.
Klaus
- Re: lynx-dev patch, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev patch, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/12
- Re: lynx-dev patch, David Woolley, 1999/07/13
- Re: lynx-dev patch, Vlad Harchev, 1999/07/13
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", Klaus Weide, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", Vlad Harchev, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY",
Klaus Weide <=
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", Vlad Harchev, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", Philip Webb, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", mattack, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", mattack, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", David Combs, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", mattack, 1999/07/14
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", David Combs, 1999/07/15
- Re: lynx-dev patch - "JUSTIFY", Peter Wright, 1999/07/15