Re: lynx-dev dev17 - lynxcfg.html problems

[Leonid Pauzner]

15-Dec-99 15:53 T.E.Dickey wrote:
>>
>> >>  Also I suggest to add the 'usage' message to the script, and some comment
>> >> to the top of lynx.cfg about what those lines starting with '.' are.
>>
>> > There's a comment at the top of cfg2html.pl (which is a little sketchy).
>> > I'll add a complement to that in lynx.cfg (explaining how to maintain
>> > the '.' lines properly, or a pointer to cfg2html.pl for more details).

>> Also, I found that string in single parenthesis like keymapping 'o' is
>> emphasized with <strong>, very nice but not explained in the comment
>> (unless you read the script or try the output).

> yes - like other people on this list, I wanted to see how people did/didn't
> like it before finishing the documentation.  (plus I've found it helps to
> move away from code for a week or so before documenting it, since I remember
> sometimes too well what I intended ;-)

Hope you will extend comment section on top of cfg2html.pl
I found several assumption made on lynx.cfg layout:

1) uncommented options are assumed "default"
2) commented out but flashed left options are assumed "default"
3) a single letter in parenthesis will be emphasized


Problems:

.h1
.h2
give bad side effect on cattoc.html
(blank line is required after .h1 at the moment)


Many options in body.html have several "default" values
which was not intended, should be "examples" instead.
That should be proof-readed, IMO.
Few paragraphs in lynx.cfg should be rewritten for better
html output, say INCLUDE section.


Following lines are assuned in different context

STARTFILE (default)
#STRATFILE (default, or example if we have uncomented default)
# STRARTFILE (normal text)

So I propose to extent this even more: let the following lines
will be assumed verbatim (no justification):

#  some text (more than 1 space from comment symbol)