[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky
From: |
Vlad Harchev |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:57:52 +0500 (SAMST) |
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Heather wrote:
>[...]
> Can I vote? I also agree, "sticky" is a suitable description for code, but
> end users either won't grok it, or will confuse it with "sticky keys" somehow.
All are welcome to vote.
> The real effect is whether a form on this page is "live" -- that is, wandering
> down the page drops into the fields, or it (with this patch, as once upon a
> time it usually?) doesn't. I can even imagine an intermediate state being
> introduced at some later point.
>
> Does this only affect text inputs? I wouldn't mind being able to skip over
> an entire form, including its radio bubbles and others - in fact that could
> be handled as jumping down to wherever the </FORM> was found... (I wonder how
> it would handle borken pages with no close FORM tag?)
IMO it will be difficult to implement, and the functionality can be achieved
by pressing PgDn several times.
> So how about ACTIVE_TEXTINPUT: YES as default, NO as settable / commandline
> tweakable. Or if it covers entire form, please name it to make that clear --
> ACTIVE_FORM: YES as default, NO settable / cmdline pickable.
This patch has 'per text input' scope, not 'per form' (so *_TEXTINPUT is more
correct than *_FORM). And word 'ACTIVE_' is confusing (if there are ACTIVE,
then there are PASSIVE).
>[...]
> I like! I'd turn that on.
OK, what other think about it (anyway I'll implement it, sooner or later).
> We really would be making the form modal at this point. (Here's that
> intermediate state already :> ) So same option name as suggested above,
> (ACTIVE_TEXTINPUT or ACTIVE_FORM) YES/NO upgraded to
> MODAL fields "sticky" - act like editor, not like lynx.
> (pls make sure it's documented how to leave the field!)
> INPUT (default) as they behave in release versions now.
> SKIP fields are not considered worthy of stopping at.
> They are still painted as plaintext.
Seems not usual state (in this case user will be unable to edit text input
content), so special key like 'show_images' is required to make them editable
or not - seems inconsistent - so let they have boolean settings.
>[...]
> * Heather
>
Best regards,
-Vlad
- Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky, Heather, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Heather, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Heather Stern, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Vlad Harchev, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Heather, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/29
- Re: lynx-dev non-sticky text inputs, Klaus Weide, 1999/07/28
- Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky,
Vlad Harchev <=
Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky, T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/28
Re: lynx-dev patch that allows text inputs to be non-sticky, T.E.Dickey, 1999/07/29