From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 6 20:50:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA22450 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:50:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from obie.softweyr.ml.org ([199.104.124.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA22445 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 20:50:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@xmission.com) Received: (from wes@localhost) by obie.softweyr.ml.org (8.7.5/8.6.12) id VAA09445; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:04:10 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:04:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199710070304.VAA09445@obie.softweyr.ml.org> From: Wes Peters To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Microsoft brainrot (was: r-cmds and DNS and /etc/host.conf) Newsgroups: localhost.freebsd.chat In-Reply-To: <199710062232.PAA19024@foo.primenet.com> References: <8761762480139260000> <199710061318.JAA27727@gatekeeper.itribe.net> <199710062232.PAA19024@foo.primenet.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Wes Peters wrote: % How many of the following features does Lynx currently support? % % [ ] HTML 2.0 Forms. % % [ ] Secure document communication via SSL. % % [ ] Local server communication via a UNIX-domain socket. Bryan K. Ogawa writes: > 1 is the radiobuttion/checkbox/dropdown list/textarea
> thingy, right? Yup. > I'm pretty sure that Lynx does 1 and 2 already, and can be easily > hacked to do 3 (it has a mode that lets you run local code as a cgi, > which means that Unix-domain sockets should only be a few lines of > code away). I thought Lynx supported forms. SSL I'm not certain of, and UNIX- domain sockets was a long shot. Of course, the Usockets would be the easiest to hack in (probably). > Table support is still horrid, and frames are somewhat annoying (but > they work -- you can navigate them, but you only see 1 frame at a > time). You can easily do a good forms interface without frames, and sort of do a forms interface without tables. We can also put out variant documents, so we send the "pretty" ones to Netscape et al, and the simple ones to "simple" browsers like Lynx. This inevitably leads to "who doesn't your server recognize XyzzySurfer as a Java-enabled, forms- processing monster?" but we don't have to be perfect, just reasonably good. ;^) Plus, *I* wouldn't plan to develop the pretty forms myself, this falls in the category of embellishments. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com