On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Philip Webb wrote:
> 991117 Henry Nelson wrote:
> >> Well, I can typ 'g lynxcfg:', maybe that's good enough...
> > Remove the "maybe", and you have my sentiments.
>
> maybe (smile) a good point, provided it is documented somewhere,
> but it isn't: not in Users Guide or Supported URLs.
> would either of you care to submit a small docs patch (HN KW)?
Uhm, let the inventor of LYNXCFG: do it... :)
> meanwhile, i have added a note in LHFB:
> BTW i assumed
> users of sysadmin's Lynxes have access to this feature: is that correct?
If you mean lynx users on multiuser systems -
as we've just discussed, it cannot be compiled "out". Only its range
of features (and usefulness) can be limited at compile time.
So yes, those users would have access to it.
Unless -restrictions are applies that forbid it (-anonymous etc.),
but that's again a different situation, and I assume you don't mean
it with "sysadmin's Lynxes".
Well, if there is ever a situation where a guest account setup would
disallow 'g'oto, but still want to allow LYNXCFG: acces, then we
might have another small problem.
---
But *if* typing 'g lynxcfg:' becomes an (or The) official/suggested way of
accessing that page - should it be changed "LYNXCFG:" -> "lynxcfg:" ?
Mayby not. But Supported URLs makes the destinction ("lynx...:" -
documented individually some way, vs. "LYNX...:" documented only
summarily as "internal URLs".
Klaus
