September 2011 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:24:05 -0400, Axel Beckert <abe at deuxchevaux.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 03:17:53PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >>> it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look >>> of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. >> >> Surely adding four pixels to the tab height isn't wasting screen >> space? > > I disagree. > > Four pixels are already quite a lot on todays "HD" screens which just > have a screen height of 768 pixels. And quite some low-end netbooks > just have 600 or 480 pixels screen height. There, fource pixels do > matter. > > But OTOH: Why not make it configurable if we disagree? > >> It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab >> appearance and readability: >> http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… > > Looks perfect and readable for me. > > Kind regards, Axel You say it's wasting space, yet you agree it helps the readability. Obviously that means it serves its purpose, so I don't consider that wasted space. (If you *really* need to conserve vertical space, take a couple pixels off the File menu and location bar; they can spare it. Or maybe set FL_NORMAL_SIZE a bit smaller, since the 14px default is frankly ridiculous.) ~Benjamin

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 03:17:53PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >> it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look >> of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. > > Surely adding four pixels to the tab height isn't wasting screen > space? I disagree. Four pixels are already quite a lot on todays "HD" screens which just have a screen height of 768 pixels. And quite some low-end netbooks just have 600 or 480 pixels screen height. There, fource pixels do matter. But OTOH: Why not make it configurable if we disagree? > It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab > appearance and readability: > http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… Looks perfect and readable for me. Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:06:51 -0400, Johannes Hofmann <Johannes.Hofmann at gmx.de> wrote: > it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look > of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. > > Cheers, > Johannes Surely adding four pixels to the tab height isn't wasting screen space? It's hardly a dramatic change, yet it dramatically improves the tab appearance and readability: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/dillo/screenshots.php?closeup=Z02-dillo3… Here's my patch; the line of interest is in the second section: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/patches/23-tabs.diff ~Benjamin

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:49:59PM -0800, Roger wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:48:31PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > >Hi, > > > >due to some important privacy fixes we decided to make a > >bugfix release. > >http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1-rc1.tar.bz2 > >is available for download now and want's to be tested. > >Please give it a try and report back. If everything goes smoothly, > >this will become dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2 on Friday. > > Compiles & runs on i686 (P3). > > ... the tabs look nice, but could increase the height to match the File button > or no? it's pretty hard to please everyone when it comes to the look of the UI - and vertical screen space is a sparse resource. Cheers, Johannes

Sept. 23, 2011

border space

by itsme_410＠yahoo.com

--- On Fri, 9/23/11, corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> wrote: > From: corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> > Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] border space > To: dillo-dev at dillo.org > Date: Friday, September 23, 2011, 1:44 AM > Globe Trotter wrote: > > same story with http://www.nytimes.com as well as http://www.huffingtonpost.com, for instance. The last > is pretty much unreadable on dillo as a result. Is this a > result of frames? > > These don't look worse than usual to me. I wonder whether > you > have some unusual settings. > Interesting! My settings are the same as what comes with the stock dillorc.

Sept. 23, 2011

border space

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Globe Trotter wrote: > same story with http://www.nytimes.com as well as http://www.huffingtonpost.com, for instance. The last is pretty much unreadable on dillo as a result. Is this a result of frames? These don't look worse than usual to me. I wonder whether you have some unusual settings.

Sept. 23, 2011

Fwd: Bug#642391: dillo: sane default for http redirects [origin: debian-bts@unpopularminds.org]

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Axel wrote: > there's probably > need for an at least a little bit more fine grained redirect/image > blocking configuration. Here's some code that experiments with letting you list a bunch of filter_auto_requests options in dillorc (same_domain, allow_redirect, allow_image, allow_stylesheet, allow_all), somewhat similar to search_url. Or we could turn it into three boolean preferences. Whatever.

Sept. 23, 2011

border space

by itsme_410＠yahoo.com

--- On Wed, 9/21/11, corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> wrote: > From: corvid <corvid at lavabit.com> > Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] border space > To: dillo-dev at dillo.org > Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 4:53 PM > higuita wrote: > > ??? Sometimes i find sites where the > right or left border space doesnt > > exist and the text is "touching" the window border, > making it difficult to > > read...??? Example: > > > > http://blog.pfsense.org/ > > http://karidawn.wordpress.com/ > > > > ??? these two are wordpress blogs, so > maybe its also a wordpress theme > > problem, but i think that adding a few pixels to both > borders would help > > a lot... if not hard to do, of course, as there is the > workaround to > > disable CSS to remove the text from the borders > > It might be partly a matter of pages expecting floats to > work, so that there's > something between the text and the window border. same story with http://www.nytimes.com as well as http://www.huffingtonpost.com, for instance. The last is pretty much unreadable on dillo as a result. Is this a result of frames? > > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev at dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

Sept. 23, 2011

Fwd: Bug#642391: dillo: sane default for http redirects [origin: debian-bts@unpopularminds.org]

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

Hi corvid, On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:13:55PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Axel wrote: > > One easy way to do so would to display the content of the redirect > > page which usually contains a link to the redirect target. > > That's an interesting idea! I should be sleeping, but Hehe. > how does the attached work for you? Exactly as I expected, i.e. fine, only that way less redirection services than expected include links in the 30x page itself. I just clicked through the first 10 pages of my identi.ca home feed and checked all redirection services I found in use plus a standard Apache redirect (Apache 2.2.29 as on Debianb Lenny): OK: Apache 2.2.9 (tested http://blosxom.net/) NO CONTENTS: is.gd (tested: http://is.gd/dLoEoo) OK: identi.ca/url (tested: http://identi.ca/url/53842451) NO CONTENTS: ub0.cc (tested: http://ub0.cc/xm/97) OK: deb.li (tested: http://deb.li/7s0l) NO LINK: ur1.ca (tested: http://ur1.ca/54dz0) NO CONTENTS: lallus.net (tested: http://lallus.net/852) NO CONTENTS: t.co (tested: http://t.co/viemv5qx) OK: goo.gl (tested: http://goo.gl/dzbq8) OK: feedproxy.google.com (tested: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OmMalik/~3/Co-kep24E68/) OK: bit.ly (tested: http://bit.ly/njgxiQ) NO CONTENTS: tinyurl.com (tested: http://tinyurl.com/3fg22d8) So I recommend to add the patch anyway, as it makes things way better even if someone wants to filter these redirects, but there's probably need for an at least a little bit more fine grained redirect/image blocking configuration. Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Sept. 23, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:49:44PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > > > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1-rc1.tar.bz2 > > > is available for download now and want's to be tested. > > > Please give it a try and report back. If everything goes smoothly, > > > this will become dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2 on Friday. > > > > Works OK here (Debian testing amd64). > > Haven't found time for testing the Debian package build yet, but plan > do so later today, [...] Works fine when being build as package on Debian Unstable, too. Kind regards, Axel -- /~\ Plain Text Ribbon Campaign | Axel Beckert \ / Say No to HTML in E-Mail and News | abe at deuxchevaux.org (Mail) X See http://www.asciiribbon.org/ | abe at noone.org (Mail+Jabber) / \ I love long mails: http://email.is-not-s.ms/ | http://noone.org/abe/ (Web)

Sept. 22, 2011