September 2005 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Re: [Dillo-dev] Funding activities

by Matthias Franz

Hi Jorge, it's sad to hear that funding-problems threaten Dillo's development so much! Could MIT's "100$ laptop" initiative (http://laptop.media.mit.edu/) be a possible sponsor? On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:18:25PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > Almost surely, the next release will be GTK-based, To what extent are you interested in new patches? I have the feeling that many people have been waiting for the FLTK-based version instead of submitting/developing new patches. All the best, -- Matthias Franz

Sept. 11, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Optional Image Downloading/HTML2txt Conversion

by TBlittlefoot

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:58:25PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:56:11PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:52:44AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:14:45PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > > > > > > > It would be nice if downloading images was optional, > > > > but I've been reading through the docs and haven't > > > > found a way. > > > > > > > > Perhaps a configuration item in dillorc that would tell Dillo to > > > > first download just the HTML source, render the text, and then, > > > > if you chose to reload it, bring down the images too....?? > > > > > > Having a no-images dillo is easy. Having a good UI for doing > > > images on demand is not that simple... > > > > > > > If Dillo could do that, and be used to convert HTML to plain > > > > text, I could ditch w3m! > > > > > > Html2text is a different thing. Dillo doesn't render to a plain > > > text canvas. It uses graphic objects (widgets). > > > i.e. you'll have to keep w3m or similar for this task. > > > > > > > > > > What if there was a text/image toggle that caused Dillo to > > just bring down the source without the image/sound files > > (which wget does by default, right?) then parse the text tags, > > like ,,<h[1-5]>,,<hr> and so forth, displaying the > > results. Then, saving the page as displayed would be the way > > Dillo did html2txt conversion? > > That's exactly the problem: "saving the page as displayed". You'd know better than I. Liking the modular approach, Perhaps one of the > > > The rationale for this is to speed up 'surfing' for the 45% of us > > that have dialup connections. Takes a long time to bring down the > > image/sound files for a page that turns out to be worthless for > > our current purposes. > > Do you have an example of Dillo downloading sounds? Errrr...No. I just assumed. The only sounds my box makes are the whirring of the fan, the grinding or whining of the disks, and a beep when I hit a wrong key. Glad to hear it. (so to speak :-) > > > > > I'll see if I can come up with a shell script that uses wget > > to bring down the source and does an adequate job of formatting > > the text therein. > > > > Thanks for the response and the great browser, Jorge, > > :-) I'll see you that smile and raise you one. :-) :-) Tom

Sept. 10, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Optional Image Downloading/HTML2txt Conversion

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:56:11PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:52:44AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:14:45PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > > > > > It would be nice if downloading images was optional, > > > but I've been reading through the docs and haven't > > > found a way. > > > > > > Perhaps a configuration item in dillorc that would tell Dillo to > > > first download just the HTML source, render the text, and then, > > > if you chose to reload it, bring down the images too....?? > > > > Having a no-images dillo is easy. Having a good UI for doing > > images on demand is not that simple... > > > > > If Dillo could do that, and be used to convert HTML to plain > > > text, I could ditch w3m! > > > > Html2text is a different thing. Dillo doesn't render to a plain > > text canvas. It uses graphic objects (widgets). > > i.e. you'll have to keep w3m or similar for this task. > > > > > > What if there was a text/image toggle that caused Dillo to > just bring down the source without the image/sound files > (which wget does by default, right?) then parse the text tags, > like ,,<h[1-5]>,,<hr> and so forth, displaying the > results. Then, saving the page as displayed would be the way > Dillo did html2txt conversion? That's exactly the problem: "saving the page as displayed". > The rationale for this is to speed up 'surfing' for the 45% of us > that have dialup connections. Takes a long time to bring down the > image/sound files for a page that turns out to be worthless for > our current purposes. Do you have an example of Dillo downloading sounds? > > I'll see if I can come up with a shell script that uses wget > to bring down the source and does an adequate job of formatting > the text therein. > > Thanks for the response and the great browser, Jorge, :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-

Sept. 10, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Optional Image Downloading/HTML2txt Conversion

by TBlittlefoot

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:52:44AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:14:45PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > > > It would be nice if downloading images was optional, > > but I've been reading through the docs and haven't > > found a way. > > > > Perhaps a configuration item in dillorc that would tell Dillo to > > first download just the HTML source, render the text, and then, > > if you chose to reload it, bring down the images too....?? > > Having a no-images dillo is easy. Having a good UI for doing > images on demand is not that simple... > > > If Dillo could do that, and be used to convert HTML to plain > > text, I could ditch w3m! > > Html2text is a different thing. Dillo doesn't render to a plain > text canvas. It uses graphic objects (widgets). > i.e. you'll have to keep w3m or similar for this task. > > What if there was a text/image toggle that caused Dillo to just bring down the source without the image/sound files (which wget does by default, right?) then parse the text tags, like ,,<h[1-5]>,,<hr> and so forth, displaying the results. Then, saving the page as displayed would be the way Dillo did html2txt conversion? The rationale for this is to speed up 'surfing' for the 45% of us that have dialup connections. Takes a long time to bring down the image/sound files for a page that turns out to be worthless for our current purposes. I'll see if I can come up with a shell script that uses wget to bring down the source and does an adequate job of formatting the text therein. Thanks for the response and the great browser, Jorge, Tom

Sept. 9, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] dillo and xhtml

by Jorge Arellano Cid

Hi Wim, On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:17:13PM +0200, Wim De Smet wrote: > Hi, > > in keeping with the latest and greatest, I was playing around with > xhtml. Now the standard seems to be that xhtml should be send es > application/xhtml+xml in the first place (there's a note about it > somewhere). Or, if that is not possible, application/xml, text/xml, > etc. Never as text/html (because this mimetype is not registered for > this content). I really wish things were that simple! :-) Just to get the idea, you can start here: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml (the URLs inside are more than worth a read too!) > > However, dillo doesn't recognize this mimetype and always tries to > save an application/xhtml+xml file, though it can always be rendered > as html. The current workaround for dillo and other browsers is just > send text/html but since standards compliance is very important for > dillo I would suggest treating application/xhtml+xml as though it was > text/html for the time being. (or at least until the CSS support is > complete). > > Thoughts? Ideas? Yes, the above-mentioned links. To save you the agony of understanding it all, I'd say: * It's incredibly easy to allow Dillo to treat xhtml as html, but it's against the xhtml standard spirit (well, if something of its point still remains. :-) * I prefer not to allow the official Dillo to do this out of the box until at least some validation tailored to xhtml is in place. Remember, the UA is expected to do validation. The bug meter does this, but with the HTML4.01 spec in mind. It would require an XHTML mode. Given the current priorities, that day seems far away. Now, having an rc option like "treat_xhtml_as_tag_soup", could do the trick in the meanwhile, but only if someone goes through the above-mentioned links and convinces me that's there's no point in not having it. :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-

Sept. 9, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Optional Image Downloading/HTML2txt Conversion

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:14:45PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > It would be nice if downloading images was optional, > but I've been reading through the docs and haven't > found a way. > > Perhaps a configuration item in dillorc that would tell Dillo to > first download just the HTML source, render the text, and then, > if you chose to reload it, bring down the images too....?? Having a no-images dillo is easy. Having a good UI for doing images on demand is not that simple... > If Dillo could do that, and be used to convert HTML to plain > text, I could ditch w3m! Html2text is a different thing. Dillo doesn't render to a plain text canvas. It uses graphic objects (widgets). i.e. you'll have to keep w3m or similar for this task. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Sept. 9, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote: > On Sunday 04 September 2005 4:18 am, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:43:03AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > > Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is? > > > > I quite often see web sites that render black on black in dillo. I > > assume they use some standard trick that dillo doesn't support. > > If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for > the text, or possibly doing something nonstandard like putting color="white"> at the beginning of the page instead of inside each block > element. So the site is either badly designed (relying on two separate > technologies instead of one for something as critical as readability) or > badly coded (using code that happened to work in Netscape 2 and IE, but fails > in a stricter rendering engine). Yes, that's the main cause (invisible text is also used to spam google, but the user seldom notices :). Unfortunately "force_my_colors" will make every page in that Dillo render in the same colors. I'm thinking of adding a togle button to let the user do this on the fly. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Sept. 9, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] external browser req

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:22:29AM -0400, Todd Slater wrote: > Any chance of getting that "open in external browser" integrated with > Dillo? Yes! :) I think one configurable browser should be enough. What's the main advantage of having a list? -- Cheers Jorge.-

Sept. 9, 2005

AJAX

by south park

Hi, I think Ajax really make dillo better than firefox! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax How do you think?

Sept. 8, 2005

Optional Image Downloading/HTML2txt Conversion

by TBlittlefoot

It would be nice if downloading images was optional, but I've been reading through the docs and haven't found a way. Perhaps a configuration item in dillorc that would tell Dillo to first download just the HTML source, render the text, and then, if you chose to reload it, bring down the images too....?? If Dillo could do that, and be used to convert HTML to plain text, I could ditch w3m! Thanks, Tom

Sept. 8, 2005