Re: lynx-dev User Agent

[Kim DeVaughn]

On Tue, Aug 24, 1999, Klaus Weide (address@hidden) said:
|
| > | Having said all that, one place that would seem logical to hook this kind
|                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| > | of protocol-level stuff (URL-specific headers) into is the cernrules
|     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| > | mechanism, if you want to do it.  That already provides a framework for
| > | doing things based on (limited) URL matching, you wouldn't have to
| > | reinvent so much (keeping lists of URLs, option syntax and parsing etc.)
|
| > Hmmm.  I can certainly see some (quite a bit, actually) value in a general
| > mechanism to associate specified url's/domains with some prefered settings
| > used to view them in the "nicest" form of rendering.

| THe cernrules mechanism is _not_ the right place for a _general_ "mechanism
| to associate specified url's/domains with some prefered settings".  At least
| as far a I can see.  It is for "protocol-level stuff".
|
| Just wanted to point that out.  Maybe I'm wrong, and someone can coerce it
| into doing more, but it just doesn't look the right place.

Oooops, sorry ... I didn't mean to imply (or even really refer to) the
cernrules mechanism you mentioned (which is why I said "general mechanism"
in my post).  I should have trimmed the quoted material a bit better.

I certainly agree with you about that (cernrules) NOT being the right place
to try and hook such a (general) thing in ... sorry for any confusion ...

/kim