- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

javascript

by brucembeach＠gmail.com

>> But you haven't added the most important thing: does your site >> works under dillo w/duktape? Because, y'know, that's more than >> astounding to me! Well yes that would be pretty astounding since duk-tape most certainly wouldn't do anything since it was just linked in to the dillo executable. Dillo has to be modified to use it, maybe a lot of work. My guess is that somewhere in Dillo is a state machine that parses out keywords or tokens from the incoming stream and when it has a complete token it branches to handle the token. When the token 'script' is found then the following text is passed to the parser in duktape. Bruce On 8/25/15, Teodoro Santoni <asbrasbra at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:14:03PM -0700, bruce m beach wrote: >> Hello everybody >> >> I completely happy with dillo just the way it is. I consider it >> insane to go on the web with javascript enabled and apart from >> gmail I don't normally have cookies enabled. (how can I >> differentiate the two users? i.e I have dillo of user 1 on the >> the screen and a dillo of user 2 also on the screen but the 2 >> dillo's are identical in appearance). Anyway all of a sudden >> after using dillo for a year or so I find there is a website that >> I absolutely must get on but it requires javascript. Well okay I >> search the web to try to find something, anything that has >> javascript (I've been searching for day and night for about a >> week now) and find that there are two things >> >> 1) Massive huge bloatware >> 2) dillo >> >> Most things don't build, or don't have any kind of a build system >> or are for x86 (I'm on arm) so I figure I have to bite the bullet >> and build firefox. I've been rolling my own system for about 20 >> years so so I know whats involved but after two config failures >> and it failing on the gigantic final link after an 8 hour build, >> I come to the conclusion that lifes not worth it. I don't want >> that piece of junk on my computer anyway. Links2 at one time had >> javascript but they abandoned it and elinks has javascript as >> long as you have seamonkey installed (tarball>190Mbytes) >> >> Anybody got any ideas? >> >> I did find one thing. "duktape" (http://duktape.org/)which seems >> to be an exceptionlly fine piece of code which is an embeddable >> Ecmascript E5/E5.1 engine with a focus on portability and compact >> footprint. All the examples compiled out of the box and linking >> it to dillo (duktape.c duktape.h) took a few minutes to change >> the makefile. The size's of the files are >> >> dillo 558,480 >> dillo 767,456 with ducttape >> >> I don't know enough to be able to do anything with it (I work >> with hardware) but thought someone might be interested as a route >> to get javascript on dillo. > > Astounding. > But you haven't added the most important thing: does your site works under > dillo w/duktape? > Because, y'know, that's more than astounding to me! > > -- > Teodoro Santoni > > Something is wrong. I don't wanna compile 20 KB of Go code to list files. >

Aug. 26, 2015

javascript

by asbrasbra＠gmail.com

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 08:14:03PM -0700, bruce m beach wrote: > Hello everybody > > I completely happy with dillo just the way it is. I consider it > insane to go on the web with javascript enabled and apart from > gmail I don't normally have cookies enabled. (how can I > differentiate the two users? i.e I have dillo of user 1 on the > the screen and a dillo of user 2 also on the screen but the 2 > dillo's are identical in appearance). Anyway all of a sudden > after using dillo for a year or so I find there is a website that > I absolutely must get on but it requires javascript. Well okay I > search the web to try to find something, anything that has > javascript (I've been searching for day and night for about a > week now) and find that there are two things > > 1) Massive huge bloatware > 2) dillo > > Most things don't build, or don't have any kind of a build system > or are for x86 (I'm on arm) so I figure I have to bite the bullet > and build firefox. I've been rolling my own system for about 20 > years so so I know whats involved but after two config failures > and it failing on the gigantic final link after an 8 hour build, > I come to the conclusion that lifes not worth it. I don't want > that piece of junk on my computer anyway. Links2 at one time had > javascript but they abandoned it and elinks has javascript as > long as you have seamonkey installed (tarball>190Mbytes) > > Anybody got any ideas? > > I did find one thing. "duktape" (http://duktape.org/)which seems > to be an exceptionlly fine piece of code which is an embeddable > Ecmascript E5/E5.1 engine with a focus on portability and compact > footprint. All the examples compiled out of the box and linking > it to dillo (duktape.c duktape.h) took a few minutes to change > the makefile. The size's of the files are > > dillo 558,480 > dillo 767,456 with ducttape > > I don't know enough to be able to do anything with it (I work > with hardware) but thought someone might be interested as a route > to get javascript on dillo. Astounding. But you haven't added the most important thing: does your site works under dillo w/duktape? Because, y'know, that's more than astounding to me! -- Teodoro Santoni Something is wrong. I don't wanna compile 20 KB of Go code to list files.

Aug. 25, 2015

javascript

by brucembeach＠gmail.com

Hello everybody I completely happy with dillo just the way it is. I consider it insane to go on the web with javascript enabled and apart from gmail I don't normally have cookies enabled. (how can I differentiate the two users? i.e I have dillo of user 1 on the the screen and a dillo of user 2 also on the screen but the 2 dillo's are identical in appearance). Anyway all of a sudden after using dillo for a year or so I find there is a website that I absolutely must get on but it requires javascript. Well okay I search the web to try to find something, anything that has javascript (I've been searching for day and night for about a week now) and find that there are two things 1) Massive huge bloatware 2) dillo Most things don't build, or don't have any kind of a build system or are for x86 (I'm on arm) so I figure I have to bite the bullet and build firefox. I've been rolling my own system for about 20 years so so I know whats involved but after two config failures and it failing on the gigantic final link after an 8 hour build, I come to the conclusion that lifes not worth it. I don't want that piece of junk on my computer anyway. Links2 at one time had javascript but they abandoned it and elinks has javascript as long as you have seamonkey installed (tarball>190Mbytes) Anybody got any ideas? I did find one thing. "duktape" (http://duktape.org/)which seems to be an exceptionlly fine piece of code which is an embeddable Ecmascript E5/E5.1 engine with a focus on portability and compact footprint. All the examples compiled out of the box and linking it to dillo (duktape.c duktape.h) took a few minutes to change the makefile. The size's of the files are dillo 558,480 dillo 767,456 with ducttape I don't know enough to be able to do anything with it (I work with hardware) but thought someone might be interested as a route to get javascript on dillo. Bruce

Aug. 25, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:32:51PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:45:09PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote: > > [...] > > > > FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio > > (just pragmatics). > > > > AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but > > somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. > > @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here. > > as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue > is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo. Yes, but it still has some problems, as shown in August's example. I usually find image-scaling issues while surfing, so I *knew* there was something there, but never found the time to dig it. Today I made a test page (by no means complete yet), and it shows there are plenty of things right, and some others ignored (attached). The good news is that it seems the mechanisms for solving scaling are still there, and that the main issue comes with percentages. As August's example tests percentages in old style HTML (not CSS), I tested mingling a bit of CSS. If Sebastian confirms me there's not someting fundamentally lacking within percentage scaling, I could work on this issue trying to nail the bizantine plethora of possible combinations. :-P FWIW, in the test-page comments, FF means Firefox. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 20, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:58:51PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote: > On 2015-08-19 17:32, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > > as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue > > is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo. > > I have downloaded and installed the latest Dillo version 3.1-dev. With > the test file below the two images have the same size despite setting > width to 25 percent on the second image. Do you get the same result? yes, I get the same result. Interestingly it works ok without the enclosing <div> Johannes > > -- August > > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> > <head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> > <title>Dillo Test</title> > </head> > <body> > <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" /></div> > <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" > width="25%" /></div> > </body> > </html> > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev at dillo.org > http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

Aug. 19, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by fusionfile＠gmail.com

On 2015-08-19 17:32, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue > is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo. I have downloaded and installed the latest Dillo version 3.1-dev. With the test file below the two images have the same size despite setting width to 25 percent on the second image. Do you get the same result? -- August <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Dillo Test</title> </head> <body> <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" /></div> <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" width="25%" /></div> </body> </html>

Aug. 19, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by johannes.hofmann＠gmx.de

Hi Jorge, On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:45:09PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote: > > On 2015-08-02 16:52, August Karlstrom wrote: > > >Apparently some (or most?) browsers, Firefox for instance, do uniform > > >scaling when only one of the width or height attribute is set on an img > > >element. Dillo does non-uniform scaling and changes only the specified > > >dimension. Here is what the reference has to say about it: > > > > > >"When the object is an image, it is scaled. User agents should do their > > >best to scale an object or image to match the width and height specified > > >by the author." > > > > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG > > > > > >It seems to be a question of interpretation. > > > > I have posted the question on Stack Overflow: > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height… > > FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio > (just pragmatics). > > AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but > somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. > @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here. as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo. Cheers, Johannes

Aug. 19, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by fusionfile＠gmail.com

On 2015-08-19 00:45, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote: >> I have posted the question on Stack Overflow: >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height… > > FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio > (just pragmatics). > > AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but > somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. > @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here. After a little experimentation it seems like the image ratio is respected when width or height is set in pixels but not when a percentage is used, for instance <img alt="Some image" src="some-image.jpg" width="25%" /> I use Dillo version 3.0.4 in Debian Jessie (stable). -- August

Aug. 19, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote: > On 2015-08-02 16:52, August Karlstrom wrote: > >Apparently some (or most?) browsers, Firefox for instance, do uniform > >scaling when only one of the width or height attribute is set on an img > >element. Dillo does non-uniform scaling and changes only the specified > >dimension. Here is what the reference has to say about it: > > > >"When the object is an image, it is scaled. User agents should do their > >best to scale an object or image to match the width and height specified > >by the author." > > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG > > > >It seems to be a question of interpretation. > > I have posted the question on Stack Overflow: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height… FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio (just pragmatics). AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 18, 2015

Weirdly scaled images (again)

by singpolyma＠singpolyma.net

>Apparently some (or most?) browsers, Firefox for instance, do uniform >scaling when only one of the width or height attribute is set on an img >element. Yes, this is the right thing to do and is the only way images should generally be used on the web (since you always want uniform scaling and don't get it when setting both width and height, so only one of width or height should ever be set).

Aug. 17, 2015