Re: lynx-dev How to find "altURL" in this html/javascript?

[Henry Nelson]

> >And what about them?  It's your choice: sell Lynx out, or send an agent
> >string that truthfully identifies Lynx _and_ its capabilities.  Unfortntly,
> >that often means _including_ within the string "Mozilla" or "MSIE 4".  It
> >definitely does NOT mean leaving out "Lynx+version."
> 
> Well, I don't currently have the lynx version in there, but it's 
> amazing that people are arguing against being able to *use* web sites.

I hope you have not interpreted my comment to mean that I am "arguing
against being able to *use* web sites."  I want it quite clear that
as much as the industry standard is that "Mozilla" means "handles frames"
and "MSIE 5" means "has 'domestic' encryption capability" that I see
nothing wrong with using "Mozilla" with any Lynx greater than 2.5,
nor anything wrong with using "MSIE 5" if your Lynx is compiled with
SSL capability and is used from the console (not over telnet).

I _am_ saying that it is fraud to purposely NOT mention Lynx in the
agent string.

> Lynx already has some "work with bad html" features.  With the attitude
> about user-agent given here by some others, all of those should be ripped
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for understanding my position.  I have said nowhere that Lynx
should be made less useful.  I will also venture to say that there are
no decent sites out there that are actively searching for "lynx" and
variations thereof in the agent string for the purpose of maliciously
blocking access to their site by Lynx users.  In other words, why _not_
mention Lynx in the agent string?

> With regard to lynx, I am mostly a *user*.  I want the browser to work with
> the same pages that other browsers work with.  If that means spoofing a

That's simply not going to happen, especially until Lynx handles Javascript.
Lynx does not do graphics.[period]  It can use helper applications to farm
out certain graphics content, but Lynx itself does not and never will do it.

One of the problems with including "MSIE 5" in the agent string is that it
has become a synonym for "handles Javascript," which Lynx cannot.  That is
why I said in a previous post that I feel I must discourage the patronage
of companies that insist that "MSIE 5" is a definition for encryption.

One of the points I have been trying to get across is that if you do use
"MSIE 5," then be prepared for the consequences.  Don't come to this list
and say I have "MSIE 5" in my agent string, but Lynx shows a blank page.
(With a very small minority of sites, by adding the string "MSIE 5" the
user will have excluded him/herself from a specially prepared text page
that would have provided all of the content in a format useful to a text
browser.)

> I run with the standard user agent most of the time, but have aliases set
> up to use a mozilla user agent for those commercial sites that I know I
> need to use it with.
> 
> That is just being realistic.

No argument.  I'm only saying anyone can be (sorta) honest AND realistic
at the same time.

__Henry

; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden