Mark W. Eichin:
> I think the distinction is not all that useful; just have a single
> virtual name of "www client" or better yet "http client" since
> that's what these backends really use :-) And be sure the w3.el
> module satisfies it...
There's more than three kinds of dependencies:
a requirement for a system that fits some sort of
[And, obviously, other languages result in their own interfaces.]
w3.el could fit the user-interface-functionality classification sort
of thing, but it doesn't really have a command line interface. This
might be important in some contexts (and, the most recent version of
emacs would allow a fix -- but I'll ignore that because I'm trying to
oversimplify things here).
For comparison purposes, note the large number of packages which
depend on smail | sendmail.
I expect there will always be work -- but at the moment, I'm going to
be biased towards not generalizing things till we see real repitition.
I think "web-browser" more than adequately fits our current package
description needs. I have a mild preference for web-browser over
www-browser, because it's easier to pronounce. If the netscape
package also provides "java," I don't think that would hurt anyone.
[And maybe it would encourage someone to come up with a "java-dev".]
Anyways, let's not get any finer-grained than this -- there's lots
more interesting things to do.
- Re: lynx
- From: "James A. Robinson" <email@example.com>
- Re: lynx
- From: "Mark W. Eichin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>