In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Philip Webb writes:
> that's a good beginning which deserves everyone's encouragement.
I'll get my notes out and port it to the latest dev release of Lynx.
Then, when I get some tuits, I'll write up what needs to be done to
Lynx's internals to make it trivial.
> if Lynx is not to follow the dodo, it has to be reworked sometimes.
A good start would be moving to the latest libwww. I don't think
that's a trivial change either, due to the numerous changes that Lynx
has made to it's own libwww.
> [Javascript support] yes definitely here.
Ok, which are the most important things to support? Javascripted links
and form validation? Fancy things like document.write[0] and dynamic
HTML aren't likely to happen for a while. (Not strictly true, I have
support for document.write, but it only works whilst the document is
being parsed because it fakes the output back into the stream being
parsed -- needless to say, it breaks horribly if you try it after the
parse has finished.)
Even submitting a form via Javascript is beyond me at the moment.
> this is not a commercial site, where one can go to a competitor;
Nowhere, which means you need to educate them about the need to keep
their website open and accessible.
> i can complain to their e-address, but before i do does anyone know
> whether there may be good reasons for using Java for hi-power searching
> or if they might in fact be referring incorrectly to JS ?
No, they're definitely using Java. Looks like it's nothing more than
a fancy front end to something sat tpldynix.tpl.toronto.on.ca, port
5050. There should be no reason they could put in a CGI front-end
unless, of course, they've bought the system as a whole and don't have
any access to it (and the vendor doesn't care about non-Java browsers).
--
rob partington % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://lynx.browser.org/
