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

[Larry W. Virden]

From: Henry Nelson <address@hidden>

> > into a global config file.  I can however imagine individual users using 
> > includes to include certain site specific configuration files in cases where
>                       ^^^^^^^                                 ^
> I can see I've been asking the wrong person.  Would you mind explaining in

Sorry...


> a bit more detail just what you mean by "certain."  Also, would you explain
> the advantage of a user being able to have _any number of_ configuration
> file_s_ for Lynx alone, especially the benefit of allowing nesting of those
> include files.


A site installs a general set of config parameters.  A user writes his
own config file, doing an include on the site's defaults followed by his
specialized settings.  Then his office mate says "Oh gee, look at the
neat colors I have set in _my_ lynx - just include my config parameters
in your file and you can have them too" ...

A few iterations of this and you pretty soon have files including files
including files including files...

> In other words, I cannot imagine an ISP or sysadm putting multiple INCLUDEs
> in the global lynx.cfg file, nor can I imagine why an ISP or sysadm would
> put INCLUDE among the configuration parameters.

I agree with you there - if I were an ISP, there is only one possible include
I would want - a set of generic machine configuration parameters - so that 
all machines shared some general attributes in a single file that was
maintained.  Then any machine specific customizations would come after
that line.

> However, isn't the same old catch 22 there, i.e., isn't it the system
> administrator's prerogative to decide what gets included?  Seems to me

Which should include (pardon the pun) whether users get to use INCLUDE ...

-- 
Larry W. Virden                 <URL: mailto:address@hidden>
<URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/> <*> O- "No one is what he seems."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.