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

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Jeremy Henty

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:14:38AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote: > > 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 <font 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). > > Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there. Please be tactful about doing this. You don't want to come across as saying "Your web site breaks in some bizarre web browser you've never heard of. It's probably because you're incompetent". It's possible the site designer has no interest in browsers that don't support CSS and doesn't want to be bothered by people who use them. It's possible they *know* the coding sucks but are tied to a framework that generates sucky code and are sick and tired of well-meaning bug reports that they can do nothing about. It's possible they won't know what on earth you're talking about. At the very least it would be considerate to examine the HTML first so you can give some details rather than a vague "Your web site's broke". Cheers, Jeremy Henty (who used to be a webmaster)

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Ivo

On Sunday 04 September 2005 20:13, TBlittlefoot wrote: > Any important reasons why I _shouldn't_ strip Dillo? Only if you have it compiled with debugging symbols and want to run gdb on it in case of a segfault or something. --Ivo

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Kelson Vibber

On Sunday 04 September 2005 11:14 am, TBlittlefoot wrote: > Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there. Actually, I haven't looked at this particular site -- I was responding to the general case of sites with black-on-black or white-on-white text. But they're both issues to look at. -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by TBlittlefoot

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 <font 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). > Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there. Tom

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by TBlittlefoot

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 07:21:13AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * TBlittlefoot <littlefoot8(a)earthlink.net> [09-04-05 06:56]: > > > > While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as > > it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most > > browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here. > > > > if you strip the binary, it's much smaller: > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 377828 2005-06-19 05:32 /usr/bin/dillo* > No kidding...Good news! Mind giving me a clue as to how one does that? Do you need to re-compile? I don't really know what stripped/un-stripped means. $ file `which dillo` /usr/local/bin/dillo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped Okay. I did the obvious and was surprised to find that there is actually a man strip :-) DESCRIPTION GNU strip discards all symbols from object files objfile. The list of object files may include archives. At least one object file must be given. So how do I find that 'one object file' to give? Or does the -s option get around that need? Any important reasons why I _shouldn't_ strip Dillo? Winter _is_ coming...(sorry). Thanks, Patrick, Tom

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Kelson Vibber

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 <font 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). -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Patrick Shanahan

* TBlittlefoot <littlefoot8(a)earthlink.net> [09-04-05 06:56]: > > While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as > it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most > browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here. > if you strip the binary, it's much smaller: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 377828 2005-06-19 05:32 /usr/bin/dillo* -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by TBlittlefoot

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:18:07PM +0100, 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. I > just switch to links to read such sites, and if that doesn't work I > give up. I've never found such a site that I cared enough about to > bother working out exactly what is going on. So I can't help much > more I'm afraid. > Sure. That's what I've been doing, and it isn't a problem. I just wondered if there was some configuration choice that would easily fix the 'problem'. It sure isn't something the authors should waste any time with, in my estimation. While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here. What is it about the current state of the Web (HTML and/or servers) that necessitates this size? W3m is only .7K and does a great job as a textmode browser. Why so much more just to display static images? Big thanks to Jorge and the gang. Great browser. Tom

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by Jeremy Henty

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. I just switch to links to read such sites, and if that doesn't work I give up. I've never found such a site that I cared enough about to bother working out exactly what is going on. So I can't help much more I'm afraid. Cheers, Jeremy Henty

Sept. 4, 2005

Re: [Dillo-dev] Java in Dillo

by TBlittlefoot

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote: > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:35:20PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: > > > http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ > > > > ... w3m displays all the text and Dillo doesn't. > > Actually Dillo *does*, but the text is black on black. Scroll down to > the bottom half of the page and drag the mouse around. You'll see the > paragraphs appear (in white on white). > > I'm not sure why the text has been pushed halfway down the page. > There's an enormous empty image "tp.gif" filling the top half of the > page, but when I download it separately the image is tiny (1x1 pixel > I'd guess). Looks like there's some layout and size munging. > > Cheers, > > Jeremy Henty > Thanks, Jeremy. I found it. Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is? It may as well not be there, right? Tom

Sept. 4, 2005