lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LYNX-DEV fotemods chartrans & SSL


From: Nelson Henry Eric
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV fotemods chartrans & SSL
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:58:04 +0900 (JST)

>       This was explained at length in the fruitless "discussions"

Guess I just wanted to hear it again.  I think the message has not
gotten across to everyone.

> but I'll give it another shot.  I use Lynx seriously in conjunction
> with secure transactions.  In that case, it's caching and resubmission
> logic are very important.  The INTERNAL_LINK stuff breaks that logic.
> It may not resubmit form content when it should, which is not so bad
> because you can force resubmission in such cases, and you usually
> don't want to resubmit in most form-based secure transactions.  The
> problem is that it also will force resubmissions when it shouldn't,
> which is very bad in such cases, and precludes my using that code
> seriously.

This is very succinct.  If "INTERNAL_LINK" could even possibly have
logic that breaks a secure transaction, then it needs to be ifdefed,
and whoever compiles the code should have the option of chosing which
logic they want.  (Not unlike the two methods of parsing, though I see
no benefit to having a toggle or runtime option, and have a personal
preference for compiled-in code whenever security issues are at stake.)

The whole area of secure transactions will take on increasing importance
as lynx_w32 is put on more and more machines, and more and more people
attempt compiling in SSL.

If this one issue is "all" that's keeping Lynx from being really whole
again, then the devel code *must* bow to this one, IMHO.

>       Let me share with you the latest manifestation of the relevant
> issue (though you may not grasp it all :).  Quite some time ago, the

"Don't worry about it [the grasping part]," Fote.  Got a LOT more
than I bargained for, but, as always, much appreciated.

> Shortly thereafter, in devel revision -84, Klaus copied my comments
> about LYCheckForCSI(), interdigitated with his own, as nonsensical
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm not going to quote the next few lines because this is where
you're losing it.  Don't jump to conclusions quite so fast (a mistake
I often am sorry about later).  I seriously doubt that anything was
broken intentionally.  All you need to do is point out (without all
the rhetoric that raises the hair on people's backs [to borrow the
dog metaphor]) what you did in this post that things were broken from
ac0.84.  The development team is handling a LOT of issues besides this
one area.  Bug reports right and left, breaking of DOS makefiles (no
claims from that corner of "foul play"; just a patch), and knats like
me clamoring for more sensible documentation.  The _people_ on the
development team have different lives to lead from you, different cultural
backgrounds, different language skills, and different ways of looking
at the code.  Be strict when need be, but try to refrain from poisonous
language.

>                                                                 My
> point though, is that he took fully working code, somewhat different in
> the devel versus fotemods, but fully working in both, and broke it,
> didn't even check whether it still works, simply to copy in my
> explanatory comments and interdigitate his own.  I realize you are
> not a programmer, and this may seem very complicated to you, but I

The coding part is beyond my comprehension, but I assure you I'm not
quite the dummy you may think when it comes to the total story.  Your
point is well taken, and the "didn't even check whether it still works"
part is unnerving indead, BUT what we see is not always what really
happened.  Because of your skill and total dedication there are and
will continue to be many programmers reaching out for a helping hand;
I could not recommend to you that you slap them down.

>       When a dog runs around the yard peeing on fence posts, the

Yeah, some dogs are worse than others.

[just for us, the rest close your eyes]
> exchanged on this list.  I happen to be a hippy from the 60's.  And

Me, too.
[back on track, sort of]

>                                 So don't worry about it, OK?

I DO worry about it.  And NOTHING even you can say will change that.
Lynx has become a passion and an obsession besides having been a life-
saver and a tool still badly needed (although the budget finally seems
it may come through next year for new classroom machines).

>         coordinator of Lynx development (hone-kay == 本家)
[...]
>        Lynx has been (displaced hone-key)

No, not as simple as that.  More like: "extern BOOLEAN 本家;".  Tends
to haunt you.  It would require extensive behavioral modification before
that "stigma" (quotes because it depends where you're coming from) could
ever be erased.  No one can ever "break" that "code".

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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]