Re: lynx
James A. Robinson writes ("Re: lynx "):
> > I want to have a virtual package for web browsers, I mentioned this
> > before and got no response, in the virtual packages document it says
> > you shouldn't use a virtual package unless it's been approved. I want
> > to use the name 'web-browser', if anyone has any objections speak now
> > or I'm going to assume this is good and just use it.
>
> I think that "nongraphical-www-browser" and "graphical-www-browser"
> might be good choices for the nongraphical and graphical World Wide
> Web browsers.
Why do we need a special virtual package name for WWW browsers that
don't support graphics ? Surely we simply need `www-browser' and
perhaps, for some applications, `graphical-www-browswer' ?
Ian.
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: lynx
- From: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>
- References:
- lynx
- From: andrew@toaster.it.com.au (Andrew Howell)
- Re: lynx
- From: "James A. Robinson" <jimr@simons-rock.edu>