At 02:37 PM 9/30/2002 -0600, Anthony Veale wrote:
> > Since my intuition and the current code both prioritize the most
> > restrictive, rather than least restrictive, option selected, I'd really
> > like some other people to chime into this discussion with their
> > preferences. I'd rather not change pre-existing behavior of pre-existing
> > options if there isn't a compelling groundswell to do so.
>
>Assuming that the restrictions are subsets of each other (i.e. nothing
>that passes staybelow would fail stayonhost, etc.) then I agree that
>the most restrictive should win. If I didn't mean staybelow, then I
>should not have included it.
>
>Ooh! An enhancement idea! Perhaps the "link not included" page in
>the viewer could include the reason if known. I don't know if that
>would require diddling with the plucker doc to record that reason, but
>it might be useful to have "link rejected by staybelow option" or
>"image rejected (size > 64K)" and so on.
I could certainly add that reasonably easily, but it would make the output
exceedingly verbose. In many cases a link wouldn't be included for a bunch
of reasons though, and you'd only get one of them listed.
For example, if you've excluded GIF files, specified --stayondomain and
--stayonhost, and have the base default exclusionlist.txt, then the typical
X10 banner add would be excluded by all four of these but only one reason
would print - the specific check that refused the file.
If everyone thinks that's a good enough idea and thinks it would be
valuable even with that limitation, I can quickly tie it to, say, verbose
level 2 (the debugging level.)
Tony McNamara
_______________________________________________
plucker-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
