Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch

[Philip Webb]

980816 Jason McBrayer wrote: 
> the current (proposed?) patch does not allow the current correct behavior
> (collapse two or more br's into one br).

there is certainly room for disagreement how Lynx should behave here,
but there is no `correct' behaviour -- current or not -- ,
since the HTML 4.0 specs are inconsistent & unclear.

> I would like to see a three-way option,
> possibly in both lynx.cfg and .lynxrc (a la editor choices, etc)
> and eventually in an options screen once form-based options is stable:

a 3-way choice would satisfy everyone, provided it's run-time changeable.
 
> COLLAPSE_BR_TAGS: VALID (correct behavior, multiple br's = 1 br)
> COLLAPSE_BR_TAGS: MINIMAL (new option behavior, >=2 br's = 1 p)
> COLLAPSE_BR_TAGS: HISTORICAL (historical Netscape behavior,
>                               n br's = n-1 blank lines)

ok, but we should use neutral language
(since -- again -- current behaviour has no claim to be `valid'):
let's call them  ALL  NOPAIRS  NONE .

what does Netscape have to do with it?
the problem arises from document authors who follow what seems obvious:
if  <BR>  goes to the next line,  <BR><BR>  goes to the next-but-one line;
they learnt HTML from a 1-day course or a Howto guide from a local store.

> With the default being subject to debate.  I favor VALID,
> but given VALID comment handling isn't the default in Lynx,
> why should valid br handling be default?  Perhaps default to MINIMAL
> with a comment in the lynx.cfg about the differences,
> and why the default is not VALID.

yup, the default is the crucial bit:
this whole thread & patch got started because an ordinary user
complained to lynx-dev that Lynx 2-8 has a bug,
since his version didn't recognise  <BR><BR>  as equivalent to  <P> .
the whole point of this is to avoid that situation,
which we could do now simply by making the default  FALSE ,
so that busy sysadmins wouldn't inadvertently leave it  TRUE .

once again: (1) this has nothing to do with other browsers;
(2) there is no `valid, correct' behaviour, since the specs are broken;
(3) Lynx should be realistic in allowing ordinary users
to read documents written by ordinary authors,
neither of whom typically has ever seen the official HTML specs
& probably couldn't understand them even if they had.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto