August 2003 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Porting Dillo to uClinux target

by Manigandan

Hi, I am trying to port dillo to uClinux based coldfire target(5272). Has some one already did this ?What should be my starting point ? Is there some good document for porting dillo to new targets ? Thanks, Mani

Aug. 6, 2003

Frame support, suggestion: compile-option --xhtml-dtd

by Frank de Lange

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:39:59AM +0200, Frank de Lange wrote: > This is in violation of the HTML specs (href is a required parameter for > <base>). What should Dillo do in this case? Currently it only checks for the > target parameter after it has found a href in the tag (literal interpretation > the definition of <base>), but this breaks pages like Namesys' which violate > the standard. I can: > > a) unconditionally change the code so these pages work > b) add a compile option (--pedantic-mode or --quirks-mode or whatever) to > disable/enable these changes > c) leave it the way it is > > I personally prefer b, which gives everyone a choice. Choice is good. Having just worked my way through the XHTML-1.0 specifications (previous work was based on 3.2 and 4.01), I suggest the following: The next version of the patch will include a compile option '--xhtml-dtd' which can be set to 'strict', 'transitional' and 'frameset'. The 'strict' setting follows XHTML-1.0-Strict (and thus disables frames and frame-related code). With 'transitional' iframe is supported, frameset is not (leaving out the frameset-related code from the binary). Use 'frameset' for full frame support. Default setting will be 'frameset' to get the behaviour most people expect. Any suggestions/comments to my suggestion? Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Aug. 6, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo-0.7.3.tar.bz2

by Kelson Vibber

On Tuesday 05 August 2003 10:58 am, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > Kelson, Phil, Oliver: please make update your packages with it. OK, packages are ready for: Red Hat 6.2, 7.3, 8, 9 Mandrake 8.2, 9.1, and 9.1 PPC SuSE 8.2 I'm moving the RPM download page to http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/ (just replace the .html with a /). There's a server redirect in place, but it wouldn't hurt to update the link. I've updated a separate copy of the page, so all I have to do is switch it in when the release is ready. If anyone wants to check out the rpms early, go to http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/index-new.shtml -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Aug. 6, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Question about frames (have them working, but...)

by Frank de Lange

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:21:35AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote: > At 05:25 AM 8/5/2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > >That is caused by the extra <body> tag these sites add (lamlaw has a > >complete > >body section - something a frame document should not have, > > Of the various interpretations, I think the most *useful* would be either > to prefer the framest (which is what most authors intended) or to prefer > the element that appears first (which will usually be the frameset). In my current version, the default behaviour is tu use the frameset if it is found. I have added a compile option '--enable-strict' which turns off checks for cruddy HTML (and thus reduces code size a bit at the expense of ability to display non-standard documents). I might have misinterpreted the specs, so I will remove the '#ifndef STRICT' from the frameset code. /me goes off and finds a version of current HTML specs, mine are outdated... Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Aug. 6, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo-0.7.3.tar.bz2

by Kelson Vibber

At 10:58 AM 8/5/2003, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > Kelson, Phil, Oliver: please make update your packages with it. I got a couple built on my lunch hour. I've already got plans for tonight, but once I get home I'll get as many done as I can. I've been starting to use User-Mode Linux ( http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/ ), which basically lets me run a second copy of Linux in a virtual machine. This will save me a lot of rebooting, and eventually I'll be able to build packages for more than one distribution simultaneously! Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Aug. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Segfaults with png files

by Madis Janson

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, William Trenker wrote: > I built Dillo 0.7.2 from source and it works great except when there is a > png file on the web page I'm browsing. In that case, Dillo segfaults with > this message on the command line: > Png_error_handling: Application was compiled with png.h from libpng-1.0.12 > Segmentation fault > > What have I done wrong? Can you give me any suggestion how to fix this? > You have multiple versions of libpng installed. Compiler used libpng-1.0.12's header files and dynamic linker found a .so file belonging to some other version (ldd `which dillo` should show it).

Aug. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Segfaults with png files

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, William Trenker wrote: > I built Dillo 0.7.2 from source and it works great except when there is a > png file on the web page I'm browsing. In that case, Dillo segfaults with > this message on the command line: > Png_error_handling: Application was compiled with png.h from libpng-1.0.12 > Segmentation fault > > What have I done wrong? Can you give me any suggestion how to fix this? Most probably you have old png.h headers somewhere. Check: 'libpng-config --version' or 'libpng12-config --version' and check 'libpng-config --cflags' (also png.h and libpng/png.h should be the same file) Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 5, 2003

dillo-0.7.3.tar.bz2

by Jorge Arellano Cid

Hi there! Yesterday I posted an email about 0.7.3 but forgot to mention the most important part: the URL! :-) There's a tarball of 0.7.3 at: http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-0.7.3.tar.bz2 The plan was to test it yesterday (it already passed my tests and Seb's too) and to announce it on Wednesday while letting our packagers some time to update them for announce time. So there it is, and will be announced on Thursday. Please get it and give it some hard testing. Kelson, Phil, Oliver: please make update your packages with it. Sorry for the mistake. Cheers Jorge.- Frank: after I upload 0.8.0-pre I'll have some time to look in your work. Now that 0.7.3 release is almost done, I guess Sebastian will have some time too (we were working on a plan for CSS, and then Sebastian had to make a detailed review of the incremental resizing mechanism because of some discovered bugs. I was working on 0.8.0-pre (plugins) and on the release). All this explanation is to state that it is not lack of interest, but lack of manpower. You'd be amazed to know all of the things I'm working in parallel. PS: the above note applies to all of you waiting for an answer from my side...

Aug. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Question about frames (have them working, but...)

by Kelson Vibber

At 05:25 AM 8/5/2003, Frank de Lange wrote: >That is caused by the extra <body> tag these sites add (lamlaw has a complete >body section - something a frame document should not have, I forgot to address this case in my earlier reply. IMO, it would be better to display whichever came first, the frameset or the body. The behavior is undefined, so it could be arguably "correct" to do any of the following: display only the frameset, display only the body, display only a note saying "Sorry, this page is malformed," or bring up a dialog box with the output from fortune (I just wanted to come up with something "unpredictable!") Of the various interpretations, I think the most *useful* would be either to prefer the framest (which is what most authors intended) or to prefer the element that appears first (which will usually be the frameset). Unfortunately frames are complicated by the fact that Netscape and Microsoft had slightly differing implementations until HTML 4 came out and standardized them. As a result, a lot of pages are written with the assumption that <noframes> is not necessary, or that it should be outside the <frameset> structure. Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Aug. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Question about frames (have them working, but...)

by Kelson Vibber

At 05:25 AM 8/5/2003, Frank de Lange wrote: >The specs say something like this: > > Use the <frameset> tag in lieu of a <body> tag in the frame document. > You may > not include any other content except valid <head> and <frameset> > content in a > frame document. Combining frames with a conventional document containing > <body> may result in unpredictable browser behavior. > >So, again (this is to the list), should Dillo follow the specs - and thus >produce unwanted results - or try to work around the cruft some sites serve? Actually, my understanding is that, in frameset documents, it's recommended or at least allowed to put the <body> tag inside the <noframes> tag. I can name at least one well-designed HTML resource that agrees ( http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/n/noframes.htm ), and I believe it's stated in the following line from the HTML spec: <!ENTITY % noframes.content "(BODY) -(NOFRAMES)"> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1 And http://validator.w3.org/ doesn't have a problem with there being a <body> tag inside (although it has a lot of other complaints about http://www.hot.ee/klubipegasus/ ) All that aside, I would argue that the <noframes><body></body></noframes> structure is a better way to produce a backwards-compatible document than simply <noframes></noframes>. After all, a strict HTML 2 browser (not that I think there are many) is going to look at the latter and see no BODY element and therefore nothing to display, but it will look at the former and just see some extra code around a valid body. Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Aug. 5, 2003