[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch
From: |
Philip Webb |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Aug 1998 19:02:19 -0400 (EDT) |
980816 Jason McBrayer wrote:
> the current (proposed?) patch does not allow the current correct behavior
> (collapse two or more br's into one br).
there is certainly room for disagreement how Lynx should behave here,
but there is no `correct' behaviour -- current or not -- ,
since the HTML 4.0 specs are inconsistent & unclear.
> I would like to see a three-way option,
> possibly in both lynx.cfg and .lynxrc (a la editor choices, etc)
> and eventually in an options screen once form-based options is stable:
a 3-way choice would satisfy everyone, provided it's run-time changeable.
> COLLAPSE_BR_TAGS: VALID (correct behavior, multiple br's = 1 br)
> COLLAPSE_BR_TAGS: MINIMAL (new option behavior, >=2 br's = 1 p)
> COLLAPSE_BR_TAGS: HISTORICAL (historical Netscape behavior,
> n br's = n-1 blank lines)
ok, but we should use neutral language
(since -- again -- current behaviour has no claim to be `valid'):
let's call them ALL NOPAIRS NONE .
what does Netscape have to do with it?
the problem arises from document authors who follow what seems obvious:
if <BR> goes to the next line, <BR><BR> goes to the next-but-one line;
they learnt HTML from a 1-day course or a Howto guide from a local store.
> With the default being subject to debate. I favor VALID,
> but given VALID comment handling isn't the default in Lynx,
> why should valid br handling be default? Perhaps default to MINIMAL
> with a comment in the lynx.cfg about the differences,
> and why the default is not VALID.
yup, the default is the crucial bit:
this whole thread & patch got started because an ordinary user
complained to lynx-dev that Lynx 2-8 has a bug,
since his version didn't recognise <BR><BR> as equivalent to <P> .
the whole point of this is to avoid that situation,
which we could do now simply by making the default FALSE ,
so that busy sysadmins wouldn't inadvertently leave it TRUE .
once again: (1) this has nothing to do with other browsers;
(2) there is no `valid, correct' behaviour, since the specs are broken;
(3) Lynx should be realistic in allowing ordinary users
to read documents written by ordinary authors,
neither of whom typically has ever seen the official HTML specs
& probably couldn't understand them even if they had.
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
- lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, David Henderson, 1998/08/14
- lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch (fwd), David Henderson, 1998/08/14
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Michael Warner, 1998/08/14
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Philip Webb, 1998/08/15
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Larry W. Virden, 1998/08/15
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Jason F. McBrayer, 1998/08/16
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch,
Philip Webb <=
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Dave Eaton, 1998/08/16
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Philip Webb, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Larry W. Virden, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Al Gilman, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Benjamin C. W. Sittler, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Benjamin C. W. Sittler, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, David Woolley, 1998/08/18
- lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Michael Warner, 1998/08/19
- Re: lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Mike Castle, 1998/08/19
- Re: lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Michael Warner, 1998/08/20