Re: lynx-dev patch to add description of extended INCLUDE syntax to lynx.cfg

[Henry Nelson]

> This patch adds description of extended INCLUDE syntaxt to lynx.cfg and also 

Man, did I let out a sigh when this came over.  Just when we're so close to a
release.  But I'm going to forge ahead.  Why?  Because this INCLUDE, AFAICT,
is the only real justification Vlad has for tacking on the CFG help.

> +# Starting from Lynx 2.8.2 INCLUDE facility became yet more powerful. It's 
> +# possible to reduce the set of settings that will be read from included fil
[...]
> +# (ie there is no security hole in including user-defined configuration file 
> +# if a set of allowed settings is secure).

Think about what this really means in terms of making the status of
configuration settings more difficult to determine.  Although it is
stated that it is "possible to reduce the set of settings that will be read"
from a single file, there is no limit to the number of those files nor
is there any restriction on their location.  It carries flexibility
to the point of anarchy.  Now you need a tracking system to figure out
just where a setting was made.

Before INCLUDE syntax was added, all a person had to know was 1) compile
time options, 2) environment variables in .profile or .cshrc, 3) command-
line options, 4) content of .lynxrc readily apparent in the options menu,
and 5) settings in lynx.cfg.

Don't get me wrong, a mechanism to use the defaults of the system lynx.cfg
and just add on or override those settings one has a personal preference for,
all in *ONE* little file is a very good idea.  I thought that's what we were
getting with INCLUDE, and I'd bet a lot of other unwary lynxdevers thought
the same.  It means adding only one more place, making the total 6, that
someone need look to debug their settings.  The point of the INCLUDE idea
is that a person WANTS to use what are probably sensible defaults for a
particular system, and only wants to amend or add a FEW personal preferences.
The INCLUDE file by definition will be short and simple.  If the system
lynx.cfg is junk, then a person wants to replace the whole thing and start
with a fresh one.  There is no need for INCLUDE in that case.

My recommendation is to simplify the INCLUDE syntax rather than to have
something implemented that is so complex that it requires lengthy explanations
for a typical user to understand and make good use of it.

__Henry