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

[Natasha Live]

IMHO: I agree that lynx should be able to do as much as possible
internally becuase it would lend an image of lynx being unable to cope
with the modern WWW if we were to say "for tables use this script, for
iso-???? use that script, etc...". The word incomplete springs to mind.
Plus the addition burden to user to ensure that all the extra programs
that the scripts need to work are installed as well!

Okay for little used features (err canne think of one ATM) then point them
to the outside but otherwise it would be better to suggest configure
options to compile then needed extras in if they are generally
un-used/wanted (ie #ifdef them out if not needed for the compile).

On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:

> 
> Do not misunderstand that to mean that I think Hiroyuki's work was fruitless.
> I think for CJK users on a _Windows_ platform, there *may* have been no other
> choice.  Still, I think that, for example, file://localhost URLs and dired
> functions could have been set to sjis from the beginning for Windows users.
> Not being a Windows user (of Lynx anyway), I don't know how hard it would be
> to include a proxy with the Lynx binary.  Does lynxcgi, the sample solution
> I offered, work on Windows?  I simply do not know or understand problems that
> Windows users might face.
> 
==============================================================================
||                              Natasha Live                                ||
||                              ============                                || 
||                Email : address@hidden                   || 
||              WWW : http://www.braecklein.freeserve.co.uk/                || 
==============================================================================