[Cc'd to lynx-dev]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >represent a form and it's input elements, Lynxzilla[1] would create the
>
> There was no footnote for that.. is/was anyone actually working
> on doing a text-mode version of Mozilla?
No idea, it's what I'm calling my Javascript-enabled Lynx at the moment
because the Javascript library is from Mozilla. The previous version was
called LynxNGS, but I couldn't pronounce that sensibly.
> (Of course, it would have some/most/all of the slowness and bugginess of
> Mozilla, but I admit I'd at least TRY to use it and report bugs on it if
> it gave me any benefit on using "real" web pages.)
I did entertain the thought of trying to use Mozilla's rendering engine
in a new version of Lynx -- it sounds like it's generic enough that it
could well do the job, if not perfectly. I think I regained my sanity
shortly afterwards. Honest.
I'm just now looking at hacking support for Flyswat into Lynx.
http://www.flyswat.com/ has more gory details, the latest Neoplanet has
support for it and it's quite cute. Basically, you feed the URL you're
currently looking at to the Flyswat server and it returns a block of
XML telling you which keywords it knows about and where they can link to.
On http://lynx.browser.org/, for example, it highlights "Windows 95",
"386", "OS/2" and "beta test". They all link to definitions at Webopedia
and Whatis, "shop for related products" and "related books".
I'm implementing it as an external python script because adding an XML
library to Lynx isn't on my list of fun things for this evening and
because Flyswat might not look too kindly on it being in Lynx without
us paying some exorbitant license fee or some such. Or maybe we can
persuade them to let Lynx use it as a kind of technology demo/loss leader?
Comments?
--
rob partington % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://lynx.browser.org/
