Re: lynx-dev reading sjis docs [was Re: lynxcgi problem]

[Henry Nelson]

> I can't understand why you wrote "it is best done outside of Lynx".

It's the "Lynx way," as I see it.  A lynx, as you know, is a small
wild cat.  We tend to associate the characteristics of lighting speed
and elusiveness with that animal.  As we continue to load up Lynx
with functions peripheral to a client's access and use of Web resources,
such as proxying and word processing, it begins to look more and more
like an over-fed tabby.

Also, I personally feel very indebted to the Lynx community for allowing
us to have language-specific CJK code completely integrated into Lynx.
I am very hesitant to expand on what has been offered to us if at all
possible, especially if it is *not essential*.

> And I think if NKF handles 1-byte kana well, 
> it means there is a room to improve Lynx to handle them well.

That is exactly what I am saying (have been saying for some time).
Just one person's opinion, but I also think the guessing routines in
"qkc" are better than Lynx's and could perhaps be adopted.

> > either by the server or a META in the document.  What would it take to
> > use that "x-sjis" to trigger better performance of the code-conversion
> > routines, and leave as a last resort manual override (or proxy/gateway)
> > handling?
> 
> I agree.

At least a goal to work toward.

__Henry