> >> Would it be possible to get rid of or somehow re-do that message,
> >> "(options marked with (!) will not be saved)?"
> > I think we have to accept, certainly for now,
> > that some options get saved and some don't.
>
> why? it's a nuisance to everyone & seems to have no rational cause.
This has evolved into a development issue, so I'm starting a new thread.
Corrections should be made to the form-based Options Menu as needed for a
release, so let's not get the two issues mixed.
If you really feel having unsavable options on the form-based Options
Menu is "a nuisance to everyone," then I think you have an incentive to
work on improvement and development of the key-based Options Menu. I
wish I could, but to be perfectly honest, my days of Lynx development
have all but ended. I'll continue to strive to preserve in Lynx what
I consider "superior" and to keep out "unwanted frills", but input will
be zero. For anyone at the entrance-level of c programming, I think
the key-based Options Menu module would be an excellent place to jump
in. So I appeal to you:
1) How about taking off of the key-based Options Menu items that already
have a specific toggle key of their own, e.g., the RAW/CJK that Klaus
mentioned yesterday.
2) Decide on some priority items that really need to be on the menu, but
aren't at the present time. Decide on items that are on the menu now,
but are handled well enough in lynx.cfg or command line switches that
they could be taken off of the menu.
3) Think about how the items on the key-based Options Menu can be arranged
in an order that makes them easy to read and understand.
* Be sure to make regular suggestions on lynx-dev as you progess, because
there are people using the key-based Options Menu who may have strong
opinions about what should/needs to be on there that don't agree with
your ideas. Don't become discouraged; try to find a concensus.
__Henry
