- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

what's currently broken in dillo

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi Sebastian, On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:00:52PM +0100, Sebastian Geerken wrote: > On Sa, Jan 03, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > [...] > > One solution I've been thinking about is to customize the > > rendering for each user. In general terms, a user goes to a > > handful of websites regularly. Those sites are the ones he cares > > more about. > > > > If we for instance remember that for site X, the user prefers > > no embedded CSS, that's it. > > > > This would be stored in a plain text file as a simple line. The > > UI interface, under Tools|Customize may offer something like: > > > > [ ] Remember settings for this page > > [ ] Remember settings for this site > > > > That's it, after a few simple clicks, problem is gone. > > > > The idea is this to be exceptional, this is, used as an > > exception for a few sites as general rendering should solve most > > cases. > > > > FWIW, I'm planning to make a list of these ideas to work on > > this year and be of help in this area. > > First of all, let's see how many problems fall into the "plain bug" > category, and so are simple to fix (although it needs work and time). Yes, sure. Now, with some sites it's not clear whether something is a bug, bad HTML, contradicting directives, etc. IMHO, just there, having an easy (i.e. user ready, click-click) way to customize can help a lot. e.g.[1] Here, I don't know what's wrong, but reading the text in those colors clearly hurts. Avoiding embedded CSS "solves" the problem with one click (from a user perspective). I may try coding it a bit and check how it feels. [1] http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/05/hate-conspiracies/ > Partly, this kind of customization is already possible by usage of > user style sheets; perhaps we could add a (proprietary) extension for > selecting specific sites. Yes, but this solution requires good knowledge on CSS and HTML and some digging time (as in the example above where we don't know the problem in advance). OTOH, clicking a pair of checkboxes and see whether that helps is much easier. It's a user-level "solution". > While we're at this: Attached is a page which renders differently in > dillo and Firefox; the latter closes the "em" implicitely, so that the > red box is below (not inside) the green one. It's very good you discovered this point! > From my understanding, > > (i) this is incorrect HTML, but Yes. > (ii) since "div" is not allowed within "em", this could be easily > detected, to mimic Firefox behaviour. Yes. > This page is a simplified version of a real-word page, and in some > cases, the implications for the rendering are quite extreme. Yes. IMO this is a good place to nail some "rendering bugs" (by reacting as FF to bad HTML). AFAIR, the HTML cleanup heuristics were tuned before DIV was supported! I'll work on this now. Please let me know of any other tags you've found in real pages that mess with DIV in this sense while I work on it (for instance EM is in the phrase set which should be treated similarly). It may end helping rendering of a lot of sites or just a few, who knows, but's definitely worth the try. See attached toy-patch for the test case. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Jan. 6, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by sgeerken＠dillo.org

> Test the "soon" > attached page ...

Jan. 5, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by sgeerken＠dillo.org

On Fr, Jan 02, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > It's a bit sad to find time and again that 3.0.4 has better rendering > than the new branch. (e.g. [1]) > > [1] http://actualidad.rt.com/economia/161785-china-devastador-dolar-rublo-yuanes It is getting better (fixing "plain" bugs). While examining why the images are not shown, I noticed that some element is set at height 0. Test the attached page in dillo and Firefox and notice the difference: Firefox shows the first line, although it has height 0, but draws the second line at the same position as the first, the latter shining through. It is somewhat difficult to imitate this behavour [1]; but two solutions are feasable: (i) ignore height (perhaps via user style sheet); (ii) use 'height' only to make elements larger (somewhat similar to 'adjust_min_width'). In both cases, the two lines would be put on top of each other. Sebastian [1] Complicated cases of overlapping elements are handled in the "dillo_grows" repository, at <http://flpsed.org/hgweb/dillo_grows>.

Jan. 5, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by eocene＠gmx.com

Sebastian wrote: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2015, eocene wrote: > > Sebastian wrote: > > > Yes, I now see; I assume that you mean this: > > > > > > http://www.dillo.org/~sgeerken/attic/forecast.weather.gov_01.png > > > > > > I'll look at it. > > > > Yes, that. Thanks... > > Finally works, although the floats ("Tonight", "Monday" ...) look a > bit different from Firefox. Thanks :)

Jan. 4, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by sgeerken＠dillo.org

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014, James C. wrote: > I have missing words on the right, on the attached, which are exercisable only: > - with the CSS > - with at least one graphic correctly linked > > I didn't finish walking down a small test-case, because the other thing intervened. This works now, too. BTW, there were a couple of bugs occurring here. Sebastian

Jan. 4, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by sgeerken＠dillo.org

On Fri, Jan 02, 2015, eocene wrote: > Sebastian wrote: > > Yes, I now see; I assume that you mean this: > > > > http://www.dillo.org/~sgeerken/attic/forecast.weather.gov_01.png > > > > I'll look at it. > > Yes, that. Thanks... Finally works, although the floats ("Tonight", "Monday" ...) look a bit different from Firefox. Sebastian

Jan. 4, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by sgeerken＠dillo.org

On So, Jan 04, 2015, Sebastian Geerken wrote: > While we're at this: Attached is a page [...] Attached in the following post ... :-)

Jan. 4, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by sgeerken＠dillo.org

On Sa, Jan 03, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > [...] > One solution I've been thinking about is to customize the > rendering for each user. In general terms, a user goes to a > handful of websites regularly. Those sites are the ones he cares > more about. > > If we for instance remember that for site X, the user prefers > no embedded CSS, that's it. > > This would be stored in a plain text file as a simple line. The > UI interface, under Tools|Customize may offer something like: > > [ ] Remember settings for this page > [ ] Remember settings for this site > > That's it, after a few simple clicks, problem is gone. > > The idea is this to be exceptional, this is, used as an > exception for a few sites as general rendering should solve most > cases. > > FWIW, I'm planning to make a list of these ideas to work on > this year and be of help in this area. First of all, let's see how many problems fall into the "plain bug" category, and so are simple to fix (although it needs work and time). Partly, this kind of customization is already possible by usage of user style sheets; perhaps we could add a (proprietary) extension for selecting specific sites. While we're at this: Attached is a page which renders differently in dillo and Firefox; the latter closes the "em" implicitely, so that the red box is below (not inside) the green one.

Jan. 4, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by james.from.wellington＠gmail.com

I'm imagining, but I have no code, writing stream filters to edit websites until I like them. My first proposed victim would be gmail, to make plain html gmail take less vertical real-estate on my width of monitor. This would be fairly un-userproof. On 1/4/15, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid at dillo.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Sebastian Geerken wrote: >> On Fr, Jan 02, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: >> > It's a bit sad to find time and again that 3.0.4 has better rendering >> > than the new branch. (e.g. [1]) >> >> The new branch is still in development. > > Sure. > > BTW, there're also cases where it renders better than 3.0.4 (e.g. [1]) > > [1] http://www.phoenixcentre.com/bodywork/bodywork3-4chakra.htm > > Personally I'm optimistic, see below. > >> I'm currently working on another page, which shows a similar behaviour >> (table with too wide columns); in my case, the reason is a plain bug >> which will be fixed soon. Hopefully, your case will be similar. >> >> There are some other issues: >> >> 2. What to do with badly designed pages, which are now less readabe >> since dillo supports new CSS attribues? "adjust_min_width" is a >> solution to one of those problems. > > 3.0.4 came to very reasonable rendering by overriding weird directives, > and solving corner cases and contradicting values as Firefox. I'm > proposing to do the same with floats and CSS. > > Somehow even when 3.0.4 decides a layout that's very different from > the originally intended, it is usable (e.g. [1]). Maybe the same > strategy can work here. > > >> 3. It may be that incomplete support (say, floats but no absolute >> positions) may cause some problems. >> >> Anyway, I believe that most reports fall into the first category. > > Yes, incomplete support (an old constant in dillo) has some > problems, but *somehow*, 3.0.4 ended with a rendering logic that > needed no more tweaks or controls. > > Now that we have CSS, floats, and missing absolute positions, > etc. it may become a bit harder. > > One solution I've been thinking about is to customize the > rendering for each user. In general terms, a user goes to a > handful of websites regularly. Those sites are the ones he cares > more about. > > If we for instance remember that for site X, the user prefers > no embedded CSS, that's it. > > This would be stored in a plain text file as a simple line. The > UI interface, under Tools|Customize may offer something like: > > [ ] Remember settings for this page > [ ] Remember settings for this site > > That's it, after a few simple clicks, problem is gone. > > The idea is this to be exceptional, this is, used as an > exception for a few sites as general rendering should solve most > cases. > > FWIW, I'm planning to make a list of these ideas to work on > this year and be of help in this area. > > HTH. > > > -- > Cheers > Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev at dillo.org > http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

Jan. 4, 2015

what's currently broken in dillo

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Sebastian Geerken wrote: > On Fr, Jan 02, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > It's a bit sad to find time and again that 3.0.4 has better rendering > > than the new branch. (e.g. [1]) > > The new branch is still in development. Sure. BTW, there're also cases where it renders better than 3.0.4 (e.g. [1]) [1] http://www.phoenixcentre.com/bodywork/bodywork3-4chakra.htm Personally I'm optimistic, see below. > I'm currently working on another page, which shows a similar behaviour > (table with too wide columns); in my case, the reason is a plain bug > which will be fixed soon. Hopefully, your case will be similar. > > There are some other issues: > > 2. What to do with badly designed pages, which are now less readabe > since dillo supports new CSS attribues? "adjust_min_width" is a > solution to one of those problems. 3.0.4 came to very reasonable rendering by overriding weird directives, and solving corner cases and contradicting values as Firefox. I'm proposing to do the same with floats and CSS. Somehow even when 3.0.4 decides a layout that's very different from the originally intended, it is usable (e.g. [1]). Maybe the same strategy can work here. > 3. It may be that incomplete support (say, floats but no absolute > positions) may cause some problems. > > Anyway, I believe that most reports fall into the first category. Yes, incomplete support (an old constant in dillo) has some problems, but *somehow*, 3.0.4 ended with a rendering logic that needed no more tweaks or controls. Now that we have CSS, floats, and missing absolute positions, etc. it may become a bit harder. One solution I've been thinking about is to customize the rendering for each user. In general terms, a user goes to a handful of websites regularly. Those sites are the ones he cares more about. If we for instance remember that for site X, the user prefers no embedded CSS, that's it. This would be stored in a plain text file as a simple line. The UI interface, under Tools|Customize may offer something like: [ ] Remember settings for this page [ ] Remember settings for this site That's it, after a few simple clicks, problem is gone. The idea is this to be exceptional, this is, used as an exception for a few sites as general rendering should solve most cases. FWIW, I'm planning to make a list of these ideas to work on this year and be of help in this area. HTH. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Jan. 3, 2015