- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

What's currently broken in... (Re: [Dillo-dev] 1.3 port)

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > BTW, your "check scrollbar visibility before sending it events" patch > solved the too-many-redraws problem. Please elaborate on it. I didn't even know there was a too-many-redraws problem, so there's not much to say. I was just tired of the page not getting events along that bottom little bit of the screen when the horizontal scrollbar was not shown.

May 5, 2011

What's currently broken in... (Re: [Dillo-dev] 1.3 port)

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:54:08PM +0000, corvid wrote: > [...] > - The test/ programs have UI problems (scrollbars, PgUp, etc.). Oh, right. I'll give it a look. BTW, your "check scrollbar visibility before sending it events" patch solved the too-many-redraws problem. Please elaborate on it. -- Cheers Jorge.-

May 5, 2011

patch: [Re: [Dillo-dev] Linked image borders.]

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

> > I am still working on trying to figure out the issue with the segfault on the other machine. > > Have you been able to wring any new information out of it? > Not yet, but I have not had much time either. Still thinking about a plan of attack. Not sure if I mentioned it, but Jorge had mentioned trying a different compiler, which I did (rebuilt both FLTK & Dillo 1.3) with gcc 4.4, 4.5, _and_ 4.6. Nothing different. Tried building FLTK2 on the problem machine, and could not get a clean compile. This interests me, as I have no problem building it on my desktop. I am going to look into that more.

May 3, 2011

patch: [Re: [Dillo-dev] Linked image borders.]

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

This seems to work now. ?Thanks guys. BTW, this works on my OpenSuse desktop machine (which never gave me any troubles). ?I am still working on trying to figure out the issue with the segfault on the other machine. ? ---------------------------------------- From: corvid(a)lavabit.com Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 20:30:44 +0000 To: dillo-dev(a)dillo.org Subject: patch: [Re: [Dillo-dev] Linked image borders.] I wrote: > I wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > On this page, http://www3.sympatico.ca/rsquared/gdb/, there are two images at the bottom which link to the W3C HTML and CSS validation pages. The inline style for the images is as follows: > > > style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px" > > > On every browser I have used, including Dillo 2.2, the blue link box around the images has not been displayed. Under the Dillo FLTK 1.3 port, it shows them. My question is, why? Which is the correct behaviour? > > > > Must be a parsing problem. It works if I change border:0 to > > border:0px, but the unit is optional after 0. > > My impression is that we broke it when implementing line-height, > with the length type changing from CSS_LENGTH_TYPE_PX to > CSS_LENGTH_TYPE_NONE, and computeValue() not expecting that. > I'll leave this to Johannes, since he'll know what he'll want > to do about it. For the sake of having something, see attached. _______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

May 3, 2011

Fw: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo?

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:21:25PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:13:19PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Jorge wrote: > > > >> Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because > > > >>people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it > > > >>themselves, which they already do. > > > >> > > > >> When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release > > > >>letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series. > > > >> > > > >> Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 > > > >>final release now, we can make it. > > > > > > > >It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, > > > >so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead > > > >of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 > > > >release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version. > > > > > > > >I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to > > > >be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- > > > >and their recent release surprised me. > > > > > > > >Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in > > > >decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it > > > >looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life. > > > > > > I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only > > > so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look > > > completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but > > > people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves > > > look good... > > > > Fair enough. > > > > Volunteers to put up the release, make one step ahead! ;-) > > This is why I was hesitant to say anything -- I knew what it > was tantamount to... :) Same here :) But seriously, we should release what we have for fltk2 in the near future. Current tip is very stable and has many improvements over our last release. Cheers, Johannes

May 2, 2011

patch: configure rm libpng version tests

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Joerg wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:49:05AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Joerg wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:42:19AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > > It seems that libpng is up to 1.5.0 now, so it's time to rip > > > > out some version tests. > > > > > > libpng 1.5.0 also creates a lot of fallout, so expect users to stay with > > > 1.4 for a while... > > > > In that people don't like the changes hiding data structures, or > > that it will take time before developers get their software sorted > > out to handle it? > > A lot of software was broken by it and it will take time to sort that > out. Can we continue to ignore 1.5.x safely? I live in a Slackware bubble and don't pay attention to what the other distributions are up to.

May 2, 2011

Fw: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo?

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:13:19PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > > > > >Jorge wrote: > > >> Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because > > >>people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it > > >>themselves, which they already do. > > >> > > >> When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release > > >>letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series. > > >> > > >> Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 > > >>final release now, we can make it. > > > > > >It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, > > >so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead > > >of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 > > >release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version. > > > > > >I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to > > >be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- > > >and their recent release surprised me. > > > > > >Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in > > >decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it > > >looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life. > > > > I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only > > so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look > > completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but > > people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves > > look good... > > Fair enough. > > Volunteers to put up the release, make one step ahead! ;-) This is why I was hesitant to say anything -- I knew what it was tantamount to... :)

May 2, 2011

Fw: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo?

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:13:19PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > > >Jorge wrote: > >> Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because > >>people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it > >>themselves, which they already do. > >> > >> When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release > >>letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series. > >> > >> Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 > >>final release now, we can make it. > > > >It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, > >so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead > >of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 > >release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version. > > > >I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to > >be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- > >and their recent release surprised me. > > > >Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in > >decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it > >looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life. > > I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only > so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look > completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but > people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves > look good... Fair enough. Volunteers to put up the release, make one step ahead! ;-) -- Cheers Jorge.-

May 2, 2011

Fw: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo?

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > Jorge wrote: >> Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because >> people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it >> themselves, which they already do. >> >> When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release >> letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series. >> >> Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 >> final release now, we can make it. > > It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, > so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead > of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 > release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version. > > I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to > be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- > and their recent release surprised me. > > Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in > decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it > looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life. I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves look good... ~Benjamin

May 2, 2011

Fw: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo?

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because > people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it > themselves, which they already do. > > When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release > letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series. > > Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 > final release now, we can make it. It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version. I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- and their recent release surprised me. Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life.

May 2, 2011