- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[Dillo-dev]testing dillo-0.8.3-rc1

by Bjoern Brill

Hello, I've tried out dillo-0.8.3-rc1 for a few days on a Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 "woody"/i386 system. It compiled and installed cleanly, and I did not encounter any regressions against 0.8.2 yet. The parser changes are a real improvement -- several formerly problematic sites I've tried work now, and the "Detected HTML errors" view produces much more meaningful results. Two small problems I've encountered: - It seems that, if a pair of <a href="..."> </a> tags contains something illegal, like <div>, then the <a> tags are ignored, rather than the illegal stuff inside. That's suboptimal. As an example, look at http://www.kmelektronik.de/ (admittedly a very broken site, standards-wise). The text fragments "Light-Version Versand" and "Light-Version Shop" near the page bottom should really be links. If this is hard to fix, then don't bother. - This one is not new, but I fixed it a while ago for myself and then forgot about it: the "This page uses the NON-STANDARD meta refresh tag..." warning usually occurs inside <head>, but is immediately sent to the parser, which in turn switches its HTML processing state from IN_HEAD to IN_BODY prematurely. After that, head-only tags like <title> and <base> are ignored. A minimal fix is at the end of the mail. Best regards, Björn Brill Please CC: me on list replies. -- Bj"orn Brill <brill(a)fs.math.uni-frankfurt.de> Frankfurt am Main, Germany --- dillo-0.8.3-rc1/src/html.c.orig Tue Sep 21 17:42:12 2004 +++ dillo-0.8.3-rc1/src/html.c Tue Oct 5 19:21:42 2004 @@ -3101,7 +3101,11 @@ static void Html_tag_open_meta(DilloHtml /* Send a custom HTML message */ html_msg = g_strdup_printf(meta_template, content, delay_str); - Html_write_raw(html, html_msg, strlen(html_msg), 0); + { + DilloHtmlProcessingState SaveFlags = html->InFlags; + Html_write_raw(html, html_msg, strlen(html_msg), 0); + html->InFlags = SaveFlags; + } g_free(html_msg); } }

Oct. 5, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch

by robert w hall

In article <DC4D721BDF5B754A8228EC6A184E746F8235C5(a)sj-exstore.wyse.com>, Linda J. Laubenheimer <llaubenheimer(a)wyse.com> writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dillo-dev-admin(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de >> [mailto:dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de] On Behalf Of >> Sebastian Geerken >> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:58 AM >> To: dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de >> Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch >*Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It >always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc., if it >compiled at all, because gtk+ apparently links against those, regardless >of what you tell it in gtk-config. > >Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box. If you have to install two versions >of a library, you've done something wrong. The other stuff on the box >wants the later libraries (glib2, gtk2). I'm not a C programmer, >otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you. > >ljl It might be worthwhile your looking back on the lists for why gtk-2 wasn't pursued - my recollection was that the initial binaries were both reported to be larger and very significantly slower. Many of us run dillo on systems with significant memory and cpu constraints (eg in my case playstation2 or old dx4-100 laptops), constraints you will be familiar with (thinks, perhaps you should _downsize to gtk1.2 :-))) Bob -- robert w hall

Oct. 5, 2004

RE: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch

by Linda J. Laubenheimer

> -----Original Message----- > From: dillo-dev-admin(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > [mailto:dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de] On Behalf Of > Jeremy Henty > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:18 AM > To: dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:37:33AM -0700, Linda J. Laubenheimer wrote: > > > *Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It > > always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc., > > Yes. Despite the names, gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 are different > libraries. You can't build against one and link against the > other, any more than you can build a KDE app and expect it to > link against GNOME. Which is why I tried to build it against gtk2. > > Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box. > > Why not? Gtk+-2 is designed to work alongside gtk+-1 with no > problems. I have had them both installed for a couple of > years, running dillo and other gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 > applications. It's all worked out of the box with no problems. One word: space. When you are working on embedded systems with limited space, you have to chose your libraries carefully, not pile in double libraries that are just slightly different. > > If you have to install two versions of a library, you've done > > something wrong. > > I agree, but that doesn't apply here. Gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 are > *different* libraries. Since no application built against > one of them will even look at the other there's no problem. > Version hell only happens when an application can link > against more than one library on your system and runs the > risk of picking the wrong one. The design of > Gtk+-2 ensures that this won't happen. Technically, two version of a library are different libraries. The fact is, when you have to pick which one of two similar libraries to include, just adding the second isn't an option. We're talking about fitting everything, including printing, on a 32M or 64M flash, and every redundancy counts against you. The whole idea behind looking at Dillo is to obtain a nicely featured browser with a small disk footprint. > > I'm not a C programmer, otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you. > > Believe me, there's nothing to fix. Just install both gtk+-1 and > gtk+-2 and live happily ever after. I did! Not going to happen. I stated, I thought clearly, that this was an embedded project. You can't just go willy-nilly installing extra libraries because an application only compiles against version 1, but not version 2. The rest of the items in the project are compiled against gtk2. So yes, in order to use Dillo, it would need to be fixed to be compiled against glib2 and gtk2, because just installing another set of libraries is not an option. ljl

Oct. 5, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch

by Jeremy Henty

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:37:33AM -0700, Linda J. Laubenheimer wrote: > *Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It > always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc., Yes. Despite the names, gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 are different libraries. You can't build against one and link against the other, any more than you can build a KDE app and expect it to link against GNOME. > Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box. Why not? Gtk+-2 is designed to work alongside gtk+-1 with no problems. I have had them both installed for a couple of years, running dillo and other gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 applications. It's all worked out of the box with no problems. > If you have to install two versions of a library, you've done > something wrong. I agree, but that doesn't apply here. Gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 are *different* libraries. Since no application built against one of them will even look at the other there's no problem. Version hell only happens when an application can link against more than one library on your system and runs the risk of picking the wrong one. The design of Gtk+-2 ensures that this won't happen. > I'm not a C programmer, otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you. Believe me, there's nothing to fix. Just install both gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 and live happily ever after. I did! Jeremy

Oct. 5, 2004

RE: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch

by Linda J. Laubenheimer

> -----Original Message----- > From: dillo-dev-admin(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > [mailto:dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de] On Behalf Of > Sebastian Geerken > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:58 AM > To: dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch > > > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 04, yuzenghui wrote: > > hello everybody, I found a patch file in > > http://www.dillo.org/misc_files/gtk2.diff.gz. which version > of dillo > > can use this patch? And does this patch upgrade dw to gtk2? > > This patch can be (at least) applied to the version from > October 2003, but (most likely) not with the current version > of dillo. This patch is furthermore rather early development. > > The plans to port dillo to Gtk2 have been given up (and there > does not seem to be interest in this at all), so you should > not expect it to be continued. *Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc., if it compiled at all, because gtk+ apparently links against those, regardless of what you tell it in gtk-config. Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box. If you have to install two versions of a library, you've done something wrong. The other stuff on the box wants the later libraries (glib2, gtk2). I'm not a C programmer, otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you. ljl

Oct. 4, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch

by Sebastian Geerken

Hi, On Mon, Oct 04, yuzenghui wrote: > hello everybody, I found a patch file in > http://www.dillo.org/misc_files/gtk2.diff.gz. which version of dillo > can use this patch? And does this patch upgrade dw to gtk2? This patch can be (at least) applied to the version from October 2003, but (most likely) not with the current version of dillo. This patch is furthermore rather early development. The plans to port dillo to Gtk2 have been given up (and there does not seem to be interest in this at all), so you should not expect it to be continued. Sebastian

Oct. 4, 2004

[Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch

by yuzenghui

hello everybody, I found a patch file in http://www.dillo.org/misc_files/gtk2.diff.gz. which version of dillo can use this patch? And does this patch upgrade dw to gtk2? Thank you! -------------------------------------------- ÈšÍþµ÷ÖÆ ÐÂÎÅ¿ì²Í£»ÓÑÇé»¥¶¯ ¶ÌÐÅŽ«Çé¡£ »¶ÓÔì·ÃÈËÃñÍø¶ÌÐÅÆµµÀ£ºhttp://sms.people.com.cn

Oct. 4, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Caching

by Brian Hechinger

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 05:08:22PM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > > Before the next release would it be possible to add an option in dillrc > concerning caching (i.e. don't do it)? i would like to second this motion. a cacherc done like cookierc would be fine for me if we want to be able to control caching more finely. -brian -- "The cats tend to administer themselves, and contrary to the expected facts, the house and everything in it was installed for their benefit." -- Nic Clews

Oct. 4, 2004

[Dillo-dev]Caching

by Russell J. Wood

Hi all, Before the next release would it be possible to add an option in dillrc concerning caching (i.e. don't do it)? Regards, Russell

Oct. 4, 2004

[Dillo-dev]Interface improvements and others.

by rootag＠terra.es

(Sorry for my English, any corrections are wellcome). Hello, I hope not bother with my opinions. In the Dillo interface, I think that is good idea a simple speedometer for medium speed. medium_speed = Total_html_size_in_KBytes / Total_time_to_load. This isn't the real speed of line, but is the real speed for load html document. I think that is very easy to make. Can be displayed together the images loaded, and KB loaded. Another question, why Dillo render, and render again and again,when load are in process? This burn a lot of CPU. Explorer and other seems to render at a time. Another more, It's posible make a dialog box that answer the human if want accept cookies from site, this time, always from this site,never from this site,no for this time? Thanks, Fran.

Oct. 2, 2004