Re: lynx-dev Javascript

[Lalo Martins]

On Feb 28, David Woolley decided to present us with:
> > 
> > <#include "not-subscribed-to-this-list-please-CC-replies.h">
> 
> This is a hassle the way the list is set up, and your article is
> likely to generate a long thread; almost certainly someone will 
> forget to copy your address back.

I know. I'm already subscribed (since I decided I _would_ work
on this, I figured I'd better subscribe).

> > GPL. It is already available, but NPL-only; as soon as the GPL
> > is effective, it becomes an useful addition to lynx.
> 
> Having the Javascript interpreter code is only half the story.  First it
> has to be matched to way that Lynx calls extensions.  Then the link
> object model has to be modified to match a superset of the IE4 and
> NS object models.   Note that IE and NS implementations of the object
> model in version 4 browsers are frustratingly inconsistent and require
> extensive testing or user agent checks; the latter would probably just
> reject Lynx outright.  My guess is that you are talking about upwards
> of a 20% re-write of Lynx.
> 
> From what I gather, the person who has been doing most of the Lynx
> coding recently has other commitments at the moment, so you are
> going to have find volunteers to do the required major overhaul.

I don't get it. Everyone seems to be of this opinion, and yet
the more I read up on libjs and the more I study lynx's sources,
the less I believe it.

The point is, libjs lets all object access be controled by C
functions. Actually, to make objects useful (like document or
document.form) I'd _have_ to wrap them. So, what's the
difference between a) lynx's source code having an internal
representation suited to it, and b) the wrappers doing all the
conversion work?

Also, I found very good news while studying the possibility. I
think it can be made incrementally, with no major setbacks.

Step 1: Add the js _language_ support, no object model at all

Step 2: Add to the object model only those objects on which
others depend, and those good for debugging (document.write?)

Step 3: Add to the OM those objects that annoy users more ;-)
(such as document.form)

From here on development may follow the usual Free Software pace
- everytime someone is interested in an object lynx doesn't
support, it is a relatively easy task to add it to the OM and
submit the patch here.


> If you don't need Lynx because of a disability, my advice would be 
> to use IE4 (it is at least a year ahead of NS4) when accessing commercial
> sites; most of them are designed to be almost unuseable without graphics.

I don't use windows, and I don't call this a disability :-)

I do have a "disability", still; my computer is so old and
broken that I prefer to live in text-mode world (less RAM eaten,
less processor time wasted, less crashes).

Also, my browsing of "commercial sites" accounts for less than
10% total. Most of my time I'm browsing Free Software and
related sites, and these people tend to have a clue.

> Note there are a lot of other ways that JS is used to make pages
> inaccessible, and these are often combined with graphics.  I would
> estimate that these are much more common than validation, although it
> is possible that what you are seeing is now is a change in the way that
> validation is done, so that you become aware of it.

I use lynx because I like it, and I develop Free Software
because I like it. Adding libjs support will be, from what I'm
seeing, a challenging, interesting and instructive assignment.
So, I'm on it.

[]s,
                                               |alo
                                               +----
--
      I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
                 Resistance is futile.

http://www.webcom.com/lalo      mailto:address@hidden
                 pgp key in the web page

Debian GNU/Linux       --        http://www.debian.org