- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

white-space patch

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi Johannes, On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:30:24PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > attached is a preliminary patch for white-space: nowrap handling. > It' supposed to fix the following issues: > > * Weird page width in combination with white-space:nowrap sequences > (e.g. on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser. > * Line breaks at tags (e.g. <b>D</b>illo should not break after > the "D". (similar issue on > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?gfltk.development+T) > > without breaking: > > * zero width space handling. > * ideographic character handling. > > It's not ready for commit yet, as google results don't render > deterministically the same way. > Nevertheless please give it a try and report how it works for you. Good! I'm reviewing the patch and it seems to work well so far. Please explain the non-deterministical behaviour at google. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Sept. 28, 2011

white-space patch

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

Hi, attached is a preliminary patch for white-space: nowrap handling. It' supposed to fix the following issues: * Weird page width in combination with white-space:nowrap sequences (e.g. on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser. * Line breaks at tags (e.g. <b>D</b>illo should not break after the "D". (similar issue on http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?gfltk.development+T) without breaking: * zero width space handling. * ideographic character handling. It's not ready for commit yet, as google results don't render deterministically the same way. Nevertheless please give it a try and report how it works for you. Cheers, Johannes

Sept. 27, 2011

Mouse Wheel 80-90% slower then Seamonkey?

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Roger wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:01:03PM -0900, Roger wrote: > >Anybody else notice the mouse wheel is slow within Dillo? > > > >Comparing dillo_port1.3 to Seamonkey, dillo_port1.3 is almost 80-90% slower > >compared to Seamonkey. > > > >Comparing dillo_port1.3 to dillo, dillo_port1.3 is slower by approx. 50%. Fighting with xinput and my rarely-used touchpad (someday I'll put in the time to find out why it's so flaky), I enabled the scrollwheel emulation, and I can at least see that, whereas we use 28*font_factor, firefox was using 3*line_height on the page that I used. (And I did verify that the FL_MOUSEWHEEL events from Fl_x.cxx's fl_handle() were all reaching the scrollbars, FWIW.)

Sept. 26, 2011

Mouse Wheel 80-90% slower then Seamonkey?

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:55:41PM -0800, Roger wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:51:37PM -0800, Roger wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:01:03PM -0900, Roger wrote: >>>Anybody else notice the mouse wheel is slow within Dillo? >>> >>>Comparing dillo_port1.3 to Seamonkey, dillo_port1.3 is almost 80-90% slower >>>compared to Seamonkey. >>> >>>Comparing dillo_port1.3 to dillo, dillo_port1.3 is slower by approx. 50%. >> >>I've found a better solution then modifying the code concerning mouse scroll >>speed. >> >>IMWheel >>http://imwheel.sourceforge.net/ >> >> >>file: /home/roger/.imwheelrc >> >>"^Dillo" >>None, Up, Button4, 25 >>None, Down, Button5, 25 >> >>"^GNU Screen" >>None, Up, Button4, 15 >>None, Down, Button5, 15 >> >>"^SeaMonkey" >>None, Up, Button4, 9 >>None, Down, Button5, 9 Only problem with this, this only increases the number of lines scrolled at once. As such, it's causes jaggy or staggered scrolling, inhibiting the user to be able to distinguish where he/she is at on a page. In which case, it's better to just left-click on the empty part of the scroll bar to scroll by page. A better solution, just code xset with increasing/decreasing mouse scroll rate. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Sept. 26, 2011

Mouse Wheel 80-90% slower then Seamonkey?

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:51:37PM -0800, Roger wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:01:03PM -0900, Roger wrote: >>Anybody else notice the mouse wheel is slow within Dillo? >> >>Comparing dillo_port1.3 to Seamonkey, dillo_port1.3 is almost 80-90% slower >>compared to Seamonkey. >> >>Comparing dillo_port1.3 to dillo, dillo_port1.3 is slower by approx. 50%. > >I've found a better solution then modifying the code concerning mouse scroll >speed. > >IMWheel >http://imwheel.sourceforge.net/ > > >file: /home/roger/.imwheelrc > >"^Dillo" >None, Up, Button4, 25 >None, Down, Button5, 25 > >"^GNU Screen" >None, Up, Button4, 15 >None, Down, Button5, 15 > >"^SeaMonkey" >None, Up, Button4, 9 >None, Down, Button5, 9 > > >You can find your wheel/scroll buttons by using "imwheel -c" > >Prevent detach/daemon mode by using "imwheel -d" and use "imwheel -D" for >debugging. Or use both options. > > >I can now see the issues with different scrolls speeds between applications and >the reason why one scroll speed within xorg.conf won't solve much. As such, >it's an application specific issue but IMWheel solves this quite well! Although getting off-topic here, if you find the above helpful, you might also find the below helpful for increasing mouse speed: xset m 6/3 0 # normal speed is "5/3 0" -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Sept. 26, 2011

Mouse Wheel 80-90% slower then Seamonkey?

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:01:03PM -0900, Roger wrote: >Anybody else notice the mouse wheel is slow within Dillo? > >Comparing dillo_port1.3 to Seamonkey, dillo_port1.3 is almost 80-90% slower >compared to Seamonkey. > >Comparing dillo_port1.3 to dillo, dillo_port1.3 is slower by approx. 50%. I've found a better solution then modifying the code concerning mouse scroll speed. IMWheel http://imwheel.sourceforge.net/ file: /home/roger/.imwheelrc "^Dillo" None, Up, Button4, 25 None, Down, Button5, 25 "^GNU Screen" None, Up, Button4, 15 None, Down, Button5, 15 "^SeaMonkey" None, Up, Button4, 9 None, Down, Button5, 9 You can find your wheel/scroll buttons by using "imwheel -c" Prevent detach/daemon mode by using "imwheel -d" and use "imwheel -D" for debugging. Or use both options. I can now see the issues with different scrolls speeds between applications and the reason why one scroll speed within xorg.conf won't solve much. As such, it's an application specific issue but IMWheel solves this quite well! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Sept. 26, 2011

Another occurrence of "2.2" found: doc/dillo.1

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Axel wrote: > just noticed that the manpage doc/dillo.1 still has "version 2.2" in > its headers. *removes version number*

Sept. 24, 2011

3.0.1 released [Re: release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing]

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

corvid wrote: > It's official now :) > > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2 > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-3.0.1.tar.bz2.asc BLFS wiki page updated: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/dillo3 Regards, Jeremy Henty

Sept. 24, 2011

Another occurrence of "2.2" found: doc/dillo.1

by abe＠deuxchevaux.org

Hi, just noticed that the manpage doc/dillo.1 still has "version 2.2" in its headers. 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. 24, 2011

release candidate for dillo-3.0.1 ready for testing

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

By the way, just to clarify on FL_NORMAL_SIZE: On Windows (and modern X toolkits like GTK+ and Qt), user interface fonts are a system setting, like colors. It's not perfect by a long shot, since fonts are still hard-coded in many applications and a number of other places, but it at least provides some level of consistency. More importantly, if the fonts are too small in your applications, you can adjust it once system-wide, rather than having to tweak each individual application's settings. This is not new stuff; Windows, for example, has been doing it since at least 1995. I really miss FLTK2, which actually used the system font settings rather than hard-coding the default fonts -- which, coincidentally, don't really match anything except old Motif apps and look-alikes, and who the hell still uses Motif? But now I digress. ~Benjamin

Sept. 24, 2011