Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Multibookmark patch

[Steve Holmes]

The only thought I can share so far concerning multiple bookmarks might be
what I observe when using Netscrape.  It allows to build a "hierarchy" of
bookmarks in the same bookmarks file simply by creating nested headers.
However, when lynx displays this file, I don't suppose it would work out
with the desired effects achieved by having separate bookmark files.


On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> address@hidden (Drazen Kacar) wrote:
> >Filip M Gieszczykiewicz wrote:
> > 
> >> Greetings. Sorry for taking this out of context. I was wondering:
> >> since you did not object so strongly to my multi-bookmarks patch,
> >> does that mean that there is even a small sliver of a chance that
> >> it will make it into official release? I've used the current version
> >> for a few weeks now and it appears to work well. Some people,
> >> sys-admins included, complain that if it's not "official" they don't
> >> want to apply it... so it would greatly help if it was, indeed, 
> >> official. Besides, as long as the user is "Novice" it works just
> >> like it does now - even "Advanced" has that option... just has
> >> some room for expansion.
> >> 
> >> Pretty please? [seriously]
> >
> >I've looked at the code two revisions ago and I don't know how it looks now,
> >but here are my objections to that code:
> >
> >  - having number of multi bookmarks in #define is no good. You were just
> >    dumping a menu on the screen regardless of screen size.
> >  - there was no testing of screen width for printing out particular bookmark
> >    definition. Just dumping it out and hoping that screen width is big
> >    enough.
> >
> >There were some others, but I can't remember any more.
> 
>       But to answer the original question, generically, the
> multibookmark patch is *not* it the same category as the patch
> for making the current document's URL in the showinfo display
> a forward link, with all the complications and overhead that
> invokes, when all it ultimately achieves can already be done,
> cleanly, simply by pressing any of the PREV_DOC command synonyms
> (e.g., left-arrow).  It would not be in the Lynx community's
> long-term best interest to include misguided patches that
> would move Lynx back toward a hodge-podge of ill-coordinated
> code.
> 
>       It is highly desireable for Lynx to support a hierarchy
> of bookmark files directly, rather than just indirectly via
> hand editing of a single bookmark file, or by manually entering
> each bookmark file's name via the 'o'ption menu.
> 
>       It's not clear, at this time, how best to achieve that
> objective, and the best way can't be determined until it's more
> clear whether any major changes in the Lynx API will be undertaken
> soon, and in turn how to redesign the now overloaded 'o'ptions
> handling.  In the meantime, that patch still needs work, and
> you're doing a good job of supporting it, plus gaining hands-on
> experience developing and supporting Lynx, so another pressing
> need (more people who have hands-on experience both developing
> and supporting Lynx) *is* being served.
> 
>       A third category was the patch for allowing 301 or 302
> redirection to be treated as a 303.  It would have been better
> (IMHO) to keep that as a patch which extends the base of people
> with hands-on experience developing and supporting Lynx, rather
> than my just taking it as it stood and including it with the
> minimally required tweaks.  But...  without it the basic objective
> of "better than nothing" information sharing would not be met by
> Lynx v2.6 for a still goodly number of deployed CGI scripts.
> 
>                               Fote
> 
> =========================================================================
>  Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
>  address@hidden         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> =========================================================================
> ;
> ; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
> ;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
> ;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
> ;
> 

;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;