June 2016 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Patch: Zero detected HTML errors

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:23:09PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:43:20 +0100 > Nick Warne <nick at linicks.net> wrote: > > > Hi Devs, > > > > The sentence (Dillo message): > > > > Zero detected HTML errors! > > > > Is a bit contrived in English - this small patch (attached) changes it > > to more legal/legible English usage. > > No replies or nacks/acks. Just be patient. The devs work on a spare time basis, and tend to allocate their time based on priorities. If somebody posts a patch/comment and it goes unanswered for some time, it's customary to "bump" (i.e. repost, ask again), just in case it got forgotten in the pile of work. It works the same in most projects. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2016

Patch: Zero detected HTML errors

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 03:43:20PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote: > Hi Devs, > > The sentence (Dillo message): > > Zero detected HTML errors! > > Is a bit contrived in English - this small patch (attached) changes it > to more legal/legible English usage. OK, let's take a look at this one. The idea is to inform that the bug meter detected zero HTML errors, not that the doc is perfect (because the bug meter checks a subset of the syntax/grammar legalese). How is that best expressed in english? > - a_Dialog_msg("Dillo: Valid HTML!", "Zero detected HTML errors!"); > + a_Dialog_msg("Dillo: Valid HTML!", "Detected no HTML errors!"); -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by nick＠linicks.net

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:32:04 -0400 Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:57:05PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:30:51 -0400 > > Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote: > > > > > Just as a quick and dirty patch so arstecnica, BBC and others > > > may be read before I come with something more structured, you may > > > try: > > > > > > diff -r ca794cd4c182 src/html.cc > > > --- a/src/html.cc Tue Jun 21 18:04:00 2016 -0400 > > > +++ b/src/html.cc Wed Jun 22 19:30:15 2016 -0400 > > > @@ -3735,6 +3735,8 @@ static void Html_stack_cleanup_at_open(D > > > continue; // close > > > } else if (!(Tags[ni].Flags & 1) && !(Tags[ti].Flags & 4)) > > > { // Block element over a NON block container > > > + if (ti == i_A && html->DocTypeVersion >= 5.0f) > > > + break; > > > continue; // close > > > } > > > > > > > Thanks, that works fine. > > Committed. > Thanks Jorge - just in time to view the BBC news site for the best news I have heard in over 50 years :) Nick -- Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who "Androids of Tara"

June 24, 2016

an experiment using mbed TLS

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:10:54AM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 08:48:28PM +0000, eocene wrote: > > > > I wanted to see what it would take to use mbed tls with dillo. > > > > I put a copy of the diff at http://www.dillo.org/test/mbedtls.diff > > and I mention it here in case someone should want that one day. > > Excellent. I like mbedtls (formerly known as PolarSSL). The code > looks much saner to me than openssl. If you both agree it's a better lib than OpenSSL, +1. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:57:05PM +0100, Nick Warne wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:30:51 -0400 > Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote: > > > Just as a quick and dirty patch so arstecnica, BBC and others may > > be read before I come with something more structured, you may try: > > > > diff -r ca794cd4c182 src/html.cc > > --- a/src/html.cc Tue Jun 21 18:04:00 2016 -0400 > > +++ b/src/html.cc Wed Jun 22 19:30:15 2016 -0400 > > @@ -3735,6 +3735,8 @@ static void Html_stack_cleanup_at_open(D > > continue; // close > > } else if (!(Tags[ni].Flags & 1) && !(Tags[ti].Flags & 4)) { > > // Block element over a NON block container > > + if (ti == i_A && html->DocTypeVersion >= 5.0f) > > + break; > > continue; // close > > } > > > > Thanks, that works fine. Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:10:42AM -0400, Ben Woolley wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 2016, at 9:00 AM, eocene <eocene at gmx.com> wrote: > > > > Jorge wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:15:36PM +0000, eocene wrote: > >>> Yet another possibility is: "needs to be closed". > >> > >> It also sounds OK to me. > >> > >> Which one is better? > > > > I would choose 'needs'. > > > > It seems that compilers use the word "expected" to connote a > softer tone, like it is just the way that they interpret it. > "Expected <small> to be closed" would be the way to say it in > that way. "Needs" implies that you need to do it in any case, > but "expected" implies that you just need to do it to fix this > particular case. > > However, I do like using "needs" for the bug meter, because it > is a bug meter, not a warning message. It is there to tell you > what to fix. :) Thanks for the feedback. Committed. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:57:40PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > it seems to fix too narrow forum posts on > http://forum.xda-developers.com/ - very nice! Good! That's what I was expecting... The parser is tuned for HTML 4.01 now, and as these days I see lots of sites using HTML5, most probably we'll see more cases of improved rendering as the parser is made aware of HTML5-specific rules. The new design is simpler to customize as it has a more definite separation between HTML rules and parsing decisions. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 24, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by nick＠linicks.net

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:30:51 -0400 Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote: > Just as a quick and dirty patch so arstecnica, BBC and others may > be read before I come with something more structured, you may try: > > diff -r ca794cd4c182 src/html.cc > --- a/src/html.cc Tue Jun 21 18:04:00 2016 -0400 > +++ b/src/html.cc Wed Jun 22 19:30:15 2016 -0400 > @@ -3735,6 +3735,8 @@ static void Html_stack_cleanup_at_open(D > continue; // close > } else if (!(Tags[ni].Flags & 1) && !(Tags[ti].Flags & 4)) { > // Block element over a NON block container > + if (ti == i_A && html->DocTypeVersion >= 5.0f) > + break; > continue; // close > } > Thanks, that works fine. Nick -- Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who "Androids of Tara"

June 23, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by tautolog＠gmail.com

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 9:00 AM, eocene <eocene at gmx.com> wrote: > > Jorge wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:15:36PM +0000, eocene wrote: >>> Yet another possibility is: "needs to be closed". >> >> It also sounds OK to me. >> >> Which one is better? > > I would choose 'needs'. > It seems that compilers use the word "expected" to connote a softer tone, like it is just the way that they interpret it. "Expected <small> to be closed" would be the way to say it in that way. "Needs" implies that you need to do it in any case, but "expected" implies that you just need to do it to fix this particular case. However, I do like using "needs" for the bug meter, because it is a bug meter, not a warning message. It is there to tell you what to fix. :) > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev at dillo.org > http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

June 23, 2016

New design of tag nesting cleanup within the parser.

by eocene＠gmx.com

Jorge wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:15:36PM +0000, eocene wrote: > > Yet another possibility is: "needs to be closed". > > It also sounds OK to me. > > Which one is better? I would choose 'needs'.

June 23, 2016