lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: lynx-dev "sticky" things, and a half-serious proposal


From: Henry Nelson
Subject: Re: lynx-dev "sticky" things, and a half-serious proposal
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:56:40 +0900 (JST)

> Well, I have come up with the ultimate option:
                                ^^^^^^^^
Well, if you can't sell code, you can always try cars.

> # The LAKABOFTIF option controls controls how lynx behaves when a
> # Left Arrow Key is pressed while the text cursor is at the Beginning
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^
Only "beginning"?  Why the capitals?

> # Of a Form Text Input Field (in line-edition mode).  The normal behavior
> # of the Left Arrow key is to return to the previous document in browsing
> # history (PREV_DOC). This option can be used for

 setting different behavior in specific situations,

> # to prevent accidentally leaving
> # the current document when you didn't mean to.
> # LAKABOFTIF takes directives in the form 'action=condition', several of
> # these can be given separated by comma.  Condition is one of:
> #   NEVER            - never do this (same as omitting 'action' altogether)
> #   ALWAYS           - always do this
> #   IF_CHANGED       - if the current text input field was edited
> #   IF_NOT_EMPTY     - if the current text input field is empty
> #   IF_FORMS_CHANGED - if *any* form fields in the current page were changed
> # Action is one of:
> #   PROMPT - Lynx will ask what to do, giving a choice of going to the
> #            previous document or staying in the input field.
> #   IGNORE - The key is ignored, and the cursor remains in the input field.
[...]
> #LAKABOFTIF:PROMPT=IF_CHANGED
> 
> Do you like it? :)
> Speak it loud several times: lakaboftif, and you'll never forget it for

All except the name!  "lakaboftif, lakaboftif, lakaboftif": sounds a little
like my son a few years ago getting his train going up to top speed.

The idea, of course, is what should have been there in the first place.
If you do go through with it, the explanations "Condition is one of" and
"Action is one of" should follow the order you introduce in 'action=condition',
i.e., reverse of what you have now.

__Henry

reply via email to

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