- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Location entry shortcuts

by Johan Hovold

Hi! First I'd like to say thank you to every developer of dillo. For a long time I've been looking for a small and fast browser, and the recent development of opera has made this need even more acute. I've been working on a few improvements to dillos interface, which I will submit shortly, but there one thing I could use some advice on. I'm not a great fan of extensive mouse usage and would therefore like to have a shortcut to focus the location entry. In Mozilla and Opera ctrl-l and F8 respectively, focuses the location entry and selects its contents. Is this the way to go for dillo? Or is it better with one accelerator for location entry "grab_focus" (just focus) and one for the clear button "clicked" (clear and focus). I you prefer the first variant; should this shortcut also be available from within the location entry (one could instead use ctrl-a, ctrl-k), or just when the main document window has focus? The reason for the last question is that the current key_press_handler which handles backspace and '/' is connected to the main document window, and hence doesn't receive signals from the location entry. When I tried to connect it to the main window, a backspace in a form (or in the location bar) would trigger "back". Why is this? Why doesn't the the current key_press_handler receive signals when entering text in a form? Johan Hovold

June 18, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Anti-Tab

by Jyri Jokinen

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 07:29:54 -0700, Chris Palmer wrote: I won't even start to comment on all of it, mainly because this is going off-topic and it would make a really long message. > Let's pretend mainstream window managers like Window Maker, KWM and > Gnome WM Of The Week all supported tabs. How would Dillo tell the window > manager to attach the new window to an existing tab group? Afaik there > is no general protocol for this. I'm pretty sure ICCCM has nothing to > say on this topic. You really haven't looked in to how tabbing window managers work, have you? If so, imho, you are in no place to make comments about the subject. Making it a simple and short story: Clients/windows can be identified by many means, and the window manager can be instructed to group all the windows that match those criterias. > See above. If the toolkit used for both the application and the window > manager were the same, and the toolkit had a general mechanism for tabs, > it would be pretty easy. But not all window managers are implemented in > Gtk, so a protocol is needed. I must be a pure looney for having a working tabbing window manager without such a protocol then. Guess I've just imagined it all for several years now. -- shared, don't bother to answer, i know you didn't get it

June 18, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] [RFC] Plans for next version of tab patch

by Jens Arm

Hi If I try to add a bookmark in the tabbed dillo version I get a SegFault: [tux@tux tux]$ dillo Setting locale to C... dillo_dns_init: Here we go! Disabling cookies. Nav_open_url: Url=>about:splash< Nav_open_url: Url=>http://www.dillo.org/< Dns_server [0]: www.dillo.org is 0x810f158 Connecting to 134.102.206.165 Dpi_parse_token: [<dpi cmd='chat' msg='Hi browser'>] Segmentation fault Jens

June 18, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] [RFC] Plans for next version of tab patch

by Frank de Lange

Yeah, I'll try to find a good CVS drop to update against (possibly the 0.7.3 release, if that comes relatively soon) and tune the patch to that. <rant mode='puritan'> On the issue of 'tabbing being a feature of the WM, not the app' lots of words have been spoken, maybe wasted. That is one of the reasons I made the whole tab feature optional, so those who take different views can have tabs while the rest can ./configure --disable-tabs and use a tabbed WM. I personally think that a feature which is wanted by many should be implemented, unless is really breaks something bad - security, interoperability, bloat, etc. Tabs do not break anything (if they do, it is a bug, file it or fix it), many people want them, and - most importantly - the VAST majority of WM's does NOT offer tab features. So, currenty, for most people, to get tabs you more or less HAVE to put them in the browser. The WM's which do offer tabs are not really suitable for everyone yet. Once they are - or once the 'main' window managers adopt a good tabbing feature - yes, tabs should probably move to the WM unless there is a compelling reason to have them in the app (I do not know of such a reason). As long as they are not it would be senseless puritanism to NOT put tabs in the browser as an OPTION. Spoken by a user of the Ion WM... </rant> As stated before, I might not have much time the next few weeks, but will try to keep things going anyway. After the 13th of july I expect to have more time... Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

June 18, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Anti-Tab

by Chris Palmer

Jyri Jokinen writes: > "Everybody" doesn't want tabs inbrowser. That's a fact. Look around you. Mere semantics, as Kelson Vibber noted. > There are a lot of window managers other than PWM that support window > tabbing - one of the best is Pekwm, wich i've been using for surfing > with dillo for an eternity now. Waimea and Fluxbox are also getting > there slowly, but their implementations lack usability at the moment. Three obscure window managers, and of those, only one is usable enough even for a motivated expert user like yourself. Let's pretend mainstream window managers like Window Maker, KWM and Gnome WM Of The Week all supported tabs. How would Dillo tell the window manager to attach the new window to an existing tab group? Afaik there is no general protocol for this. I'm pretty sure ICCCM has nothing to say on this topic. > Having tab support in a window manager is flexiple. Much more flexiple > then they can ever get in a, lets say browser, without writing a > complete internal window manager. If the functionality doesn't exist, you have to create it. It didn't exist, and Frank created it. Are you going to create a protocol for tabbing in window managers, and convince all the wm developers to adopt it? Are you going to help them implement it? > > It would not be easy to use since the toolkit (Gtk) is not tightly > > integrated with the window manager > > How should this be of any importance? Please enlighten me, who wonder > in the dark. See above. If the toolkit used for both the application and the window manager were the same, and the toolkit had a general mechanism for tabs, it would be pretty easy. But not all window managers are implemented in Gtk, so a protocol is needed. > I care to object on the plea of ease of use. This far all the tabbin > browsers i have tried have been overly complicated to use compared to > the way pekwm handles it. It's a simple Ctrl-T in Phoenix and Command-T in Camino to create new tabbed windows. Ctrl-W/Command-W closes them. You can drag links to the tabs to cause that link to load in the indicated tab. That's pretty simple. Of course, your window manager will trap or ignore those keystrokes, making that very simple mechanism impossible. The window manager will have to support all of the several possible drag-and-drop protocols applications might use. Oops! > And the sheer fact that i can rebind my keys and mouse clicks with the > window manager but not with the browsers is enough to convince me of > ease of use. Hacking configuration files is not my idea of great ease of use. Software usability is acheived in part by defining and adhering to a user interaction policy. The X Window System and related projects have always eschewed policy setting; instead, only a mechanism is provided. (In some cases, not even a mechanism was provided: window management itself was an afterthought, as was drag-and-drop.) That leaves application developers "free" to devise their own wacky schemes, all different. The inevitable result is pain for users. > There are many great window manager projects developed, The very idea of a window manager as a distinct entity is stupid, from a usability point of view. There aren't 200 window managers for Mac OS, Mac OS X, Windows, PalmOS or BeOS. The makers of those products were trying to make something people could use. > and i do hope you take attleast that one back. After all, dillo once > was a petty crappy piece of software (and still is for an untrained > eye), but it has potential. Just like many of those window manager > projects, which you seem to doom as a byproduct to make a wery pointed > point. My point is simply this: For Dillo to succeed, it must meet the needs of users. Web browser users tend to open many documents at a time, and surf between them. They need a way to manage the clutter, and Frank has provided that in a manner similar to that used in other web browsers. Users also need HTTPS, which has also generously been provided. As of right now (I just updated CVS), HTTPS support is not in the source tree. > Closing word, The fact that dillo now could and probably will have > tabbing support is absolutely great. The fact that the work put into > it might get us closer to having frame support is absolutely great. > The fact that I can toggle it off at compilr time is absolutely great. > People being more or less out of order in a mailing list about a > matter like this is _not_great_. I agree! Everyone should be sending Frank cases of beer, not yelling at him for adding "bloat" or saying "That's great, but we prefer to do it in a way that is pretty much impossible to implement, so no thanks."

June 18, 2003

RE: [Dillo-dev] [RFC] Plans for next version of tab patch

by Eric Gaudet

> I'd advise you to choose a date from CVS and improve the patch > against it (not trying to catch up with current); that way the > patch can be polished without too much hassle and with the > feedback of interested developers. > I recommend we tag cvs for such things, to get an easy reference, or better yet, we branch, so merging is easy.

June 17, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] [RFC] Plans for next version of tab patch

by Jorge Arellano Cid

Hi Frank, On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Frank de Lange wrote: > Hej! > > Now that the first release of my tab patch is 'out there', I'd like to > give a short overview of my plans for the next version of this patch. If geocities stops working just let me know, or ask Andreas who mirrored the patch... > I > do not know when I'll be able to release this next version, as I'm busy > this week, followed by a trip to the UK (back the 13th of juli), but I > will try to make it relatively soon... No problem. Some time ago (maybe a lot), Arvind told me he had developed a "tabs" patch for dillo: http://www.dillo.org/test/dillo_tabs.png He had to work on it some more, then he got very busy, and I haven't heard of it in a long time... Technically, what interests me more about the patch is the separation of interface code out of document code. Now Sebastian is working on another separation; for CSS (it also involves several files), so I think it is better to keep both works separated until our re-structuring of the parser is well defined. I'd advise you to choose a date from CVS and improve the patch against it (not trying to catch up with current); that way the patch can be polished without too much hassle and with the feedback of interested developers. Then, when the time to merge comes, it will be stable, clean and polished. Personally, I can't look at it right now (because of the above mentioned reasons, plus I'm dedicated to the dillo plugins extensions). NOTE: We have advanced a lot with Ferdi on dpid, so it will soon be integrated and commited. ... it has come a tradition (or better, our way of development) to test a lot the patches before commiting them in. That way, the CVS keeps stable, the code clean, and we can keep up with the ideal of always releasing a better Dillo than the former. As you noticed, the patch generated a lot of feedback. I hope patches start to come just as bug notes! ;) > [...] > > Jorge, let me know if/when you plan to commit the patch to CVS (read above) Last, but not the least, I also think that tabbing is a function that should/must be done by the WM. I always try to find "the right place" to put a patch, and IMO it belongs to the WM. Now, as these days only a few WMs come with good tabs support, and as the patch seems small, it should pose no major trouble to eventually commit it. Welcome aboard! Jorge.-

June 17, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Anti-Tab

by Frank de Lange

Andreas Zwinkau wrote: > I just want to throw in, that tabbing may be a bloat-feature. Just > because every modern browser has it and everybody wants it, i needn't to > be necessary. I watched a similar discussion some time ago and a wise > argument convinced me, that tabbing is not a task for a browser. > > Before you call me loony, listen. > Tabbing is about handling different windows, but handling windows is > nothing a browser should do. Leave to the programs, which are made for > especially that: Window Managers! Tabbing should not be implemented in a > browser, but in the window manager. > > Sorry, if KDE and Gnome don't support it (i think, am i wrong?) > > Just my 2ct ;) Have a look at the numbers I included on the 'bloat' caused by tabs. You can find this information in the doc/Browser_Tabs.txt file: CFLAGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- tabs | -g -g stripped -O2 -O2 stripped -Os -Os stripped ........|---------------------------------------------------------------- enabled | 3558892 390204 384453 316444 359821 291868 | disabled| 3468465 381916 374382 308188 350454 284316 | (before)| 3332856 377920 373773 308000 349141 283424 Versions and settings --------------------- gcc: 3.2.2 binutils:2.13.90.0.18 In other words, tabs add all of 7552 bytes to Dillo, on a total size of 291868 bytes. Now please tell me if this is bloat. Also, remember that tabbing window managers are not for everyone. And tabbing is OPTIONAL. Use the --disable-tabs option and there will be no tab code in you binary. So what is the problem again? Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

June 17, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Anti-Tab

by Kelson Vibber

At 10:43 AM 6/17/2003, Jyri Jokinen wrote: > > When it comes to software, "everybody wants it" is a really, really > > good sign that the feature is necessary. > >"Everybody" doesn't want tabs inbrowser. That's a fact. Look around you. That's just semantics. Perhaps not "everybody," but certainly many people love using tabs with their web browsers. Tabs were the main "killer feature" for Mozilla 1.0 (every review of Mozilla for months talked about them), and were requested immediately upon the announcement of Safari. Tabbed browsing (of some sort) is extremely popular. The main disagreement is over where to put the code. > > Implementing it in the application is the best way to do it, given the > > realities of the X Window System. > >As someone pretty happily using a tabbing window manager - could I get >closer information on this, thank you. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but the way I read this was that the "realities" of X are that there are many different window managers out there, and that the most popular ones do *not* handle tabs themselves. When KWM, Metacity (or whatever Gnome is using by then), and other WMs shipped by default feature well-done tabbed windowing, then putting the code in the browser will be redundant. But for now, they don't, and the best way to handle everyone who wants this for their web browser - assuming it doesn't triple the size of the code (and this doesn't appear to) - is to go ahead and put the code in the browser. Kelson Vibber SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>

June 17, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Suggestion for a next dillo version

by Kelson Vibber

At 03:16 AM 6/16/2003, Manuel Serrano wrote: >I was wondering if it could be possible to have an automatic >hidden bar such as in many window manager (fluxbox, kde, gnone, >...). That is the navigation bar is automatically hidden until the >mouse fly over the very top lines. Whether it's technically feasible or not, I don't think this would be very usable, except perhaps in full-screen mode (by which I mean having the dillo window taking up the entire screen, with no title bar at the top). The activation area for one of these has to be narrow, or else you use up the space you gained by hiding it. And having a narrow area - say, the size of a window border - only works if you (a) are doing something that requires precision anyway, like resizing a window, or (b) can't miss it. The reason auto-hide and auto-show works for window managers is that they are at the edge of the screen, and there's nowhere else for the mouse cursor to go. You don't have to worry about hitting an exact area, you just send it in that direction and the toolbar appears. This is true for KDE, Gnome, Windows, Mac OS X, and so on. Putting this in a window would mean hitting something like a 5-pixel wide border, then hitting the toolbar buttons - essentially making it a drop-down menu that's hard to reach and extends horizontally instead of vertically. IMO, it would be more usable to take it a step further and make it an actual drop-down menu, with an activation area the size of the "show controls" button. (I'm not sure how the URL control would fit into this, though.) The exception would be if this were aimed at a true full-screen mode, in which case you gain the same advantages that window managers have by stopping at the edge of the screen. Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

June 17, 2003