- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[bug]: CssParser::{nextToken, skipString}() skip an extra character.

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

The CssParser class has an unfortunate interaction between nextToken() and skipString(): they are both eager to call getChar(). The result is that when skipString() succeeds it has already getChar()-ed the character immediately after the string to be skipped, but nextToken() insists on calling getChar() again. This means that the character after the skipped string is also skipped. This causes two bugs. Firstly, if there is a completely empty CSS comment, ie. '/**/', then the closing '*/' is ignored (because it has already been partly skipped over). This generally causes most or all of the style to be ignored as the parser searches for the end of the comment. You can see this in the wild[1]! Secondly, if a token starts immediately after a CSS comment, then its first character is lost. The attached example shows both bugs. The first bug stops the red style from being applied to the <p> element, and the second bug applies the blue style to the <i> element instead of the <li> element. The quick fix is for skipString() to call ungetChar() before returning successfully (patch attached). Luckily only nextToken() calls skipString(). Should I push this, or is there a better way to do it? [1] http://layscience.net/node/1120

Nov. 14, 2010

Dillo-Win32 patches, split and ready to merge

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:03:31 -0500, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > Joerg wrote: >> Primary issue with depending on certain C99 stuff is that Microsoft >> still hasn't managed to support it in the runtime library or insists on >> doing it in incompatible ways. E.g. %lld doesn't work on Windows. > > Yeah, I see that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations , > level of support is generally 'mostly' or 'partial'. I was thinking that > it might be valuable to decide on what subset is all right (which, > admittedly, "Using gcc and not seeing any warnings" can be regarded as, > after a fashion. :) -- even if only to bring awareness of "Oh, this is > a C99ism; I hadn't realized." > The dillo site does spell out, for instance, that for C++, "We also try > to keep the C++ relatively simple. Dillo does use inheritance and > templates, > but that's about all." I'm not sure how formal our guidelines would need to be, but if the main problem is Windows support, whatever subset we're currently using is just fine. The only problems I've encountered are upstream FLTK bugs (their Windows version is frankly abysmal), and explicit Unix-isms, mostly involving inter-process communication. For what it's worth I'm using gcc-3.4.6 from MinGW 5.1.6. A little outdated, I know, but it's the last version with a coherent installer. ~Benjamin

Nov. 13, 2010

Dillo-Win32 patches, split and ready to merge

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Joerg wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41:53PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, > > and I see that the latter is posix 2001. > > It is relatively easy to emulate the ipv4 part of getnameinfo(), but a > lot harder to properly support IPv6 without using it. I remember Justus doing some work on IPv6. Is it not complete? > > Do we have an official position on posix 2001? > > > > And, for that matter, C99? > > Primary issue with depending on certain C99 stuff is that Microsoft > still hasn't managed to support it in the runtime library or insists on > doing it in incompatible ways. E.g. %lld doesn't work on Windows. Yeah, I see that on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99#Implementations , level of support is generally 'mostly' or 'partial'. I was thinking that it might be valuable to decide on what subset is all right (which, admittedly, "Using gcc and not seeing any warnings" can be regarded as, after a fashion. :) -- even if only to bring awareness of "Oh, this is a C99ism; I hadn't realized." The dillo site does spell out, for instance, that for C++, "We also try to keep the C++ relatively simple. Dillo does use inheritance and templates, but that's about all."

Nov. 13, 2010

Dillo-Win32 patches, split and ready to merge

by joerg.sonnenberger＠web.de

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:41:53PM +0000, corvid wrote: > I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, > and I see that the latter is posix 2001. It is relatively easy to emulate the ipv4 part of getnameinfo(), but a lot harder to properly support IPv6 without using it. > Do we have an official position on posix 2001? > > And, for that matter, C99? Primary issue with depending on certain C99 stuff is that Microsoft still hasn't managed to support it in the runtime library or insists on doing it in incompatible ways. E.g. %lld doesn't work on Windows. Joerg

Nov. 12, 2010

Dillo-Win32 patches, split and ready to merge

by corvid＠lavabit.com

I thought I'd at least look into the inet_ntop() -> getnameinfo() bit, and I see that the latter is posix 2001. Do we have an official position on posix 2001? And, for that matter, C99? There at least used to be a bit in decode.c where I was discouraged from using a Unicode string because it was C99, but we also had a thread http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2008-June/004634.html on the fact that --enable-ansi is no good because we use too many C99isms. (I'd forgotten all about that thread, actually. I vote again for removing the option, since I can't imagine the variadic macros going away, for instance.)

Nov. 12, 2010

Dillo-Win32 patches, split and ready to merge

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Here are the split Dillo-Win32 patches, ready to merge into the upstream tree: http://dillo-win32.sourceforge.net/patches.html I've cleaned up the code somewhat, such as removing the ugly conditionals from dsock.h. This version no longer includes the infamous "timeout kludge"; however, it must be built against a patched FLTK2 library, as the upstream implementation is still very badly broken. (The necessary patch is available from the Dillo-Win32 SourceForge site.) These patches produce a working ./src/dillo.exe. DPI has not yet been ported, as I presently have neither the time nor interest to do so. I'll probably get a binary package and installer up sometime in the next few days for anyone who wants to play around with the latest and greatest. Let me know if I need to double-check anything. Cheers, ~Benjamin

Nov. 12, 2010

patch: text-indent

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Johannes wrote: > We probabely want some isBlockLevelWidget() function... Using Widget::Flags, perhaps, or would you think it best generally to save the flags for state that changes during a widget's life?

Nov. 11, 2010

patch: text-indent

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:40:19PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Johannes wrote: > > I just noticed one thing that might complicate stuff a bit. Consider > > the following page: > > > > <div style="text-indent: 3em; border: 1px solid"> > > <div style="text-indent: 3em; border: 1px solid"> > > foo > > </div> > > bar > > </div> > > > > It seems that the inner <div> should not be indented, just text. The > > spec says: "More precisely, it specifies the indentation of the > > first box that flows into the block's first line box" > > > > I'd interpet it in dillo terms as to do the indent only if the first > > word is not a textblock widget. > > As in the attached? Yes, but also for Tables. What other widgets do we have? Bullet I guess they are inline Images are inline I think Ruler this is block level, so needs no indent ListItem do we need to check for it or will it show up as Textblock::CLASS_ID? TableCell same as for ListItem We probabely want some isBlockLevelWidget() function... > > > The question is then whether the "bar" should be indented. From the > > spec I would say yes, but firefox does not seem to do it... > > > > What do you think? > > My impression is that the inner div is a block, and the bar goes into > an anonymous block according to the spec, and the anonymous block > inherits text-indent, and would indent it, but the spec is a little > monstrous, so there may be some reason why that's not it. I would think > the intention of text-indent is only to indent the first thing... > Sounds reasonable. Cheers, Johannes

Nov. 10, 2010

News from FLTK

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:24:19PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > Hi there, > > FYI: > > http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s9941+gfltk.development+v9960+T0 Hey cool! Seems we really need to get ready to port dillo to 1.3. Cheers, Johannes

Nov. 10, 2010

News from FLTK

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi there, FYI: http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s9941+gfltk.development+v9960+T0 -- Cheers Jorge.-

Nov. 10, 2010