- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

patch: white-space: pre-line as well

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:39:26AM +0000, corvid wrote: > I don't know whether it's of much use, exactly, but while I was > in the conceptual area... Excellent! One step closer to full CSS2.1 compliance. Please commit!

April 7, 2010

web bug save?

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:41:50AM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:07:50PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > > I'd only suggest considering whether adding a URL flag (e.g. > > > > URL_FilterOut) provides more flexibility/clarity without having > > > > to add the 'requester' parameter to the API. > > > > > > Can you elaborate a bit on how/where the flag would be set, and > > > how it would help? > > > > I haven't looked at it in enough depth to offer a good > > alternative yet. Just noticed of the API changes, made an extra > > couple of passes above the code considering the flag or having > > referer in the DilloUrl struct. > > > > The idea is to commit it and to consider the alternatives > > later. > > All right, then. Committed. Cool! Quite interesting to look at all those DENY's! > > Everyone: > 1) This will surely require various tweaks. > 2) If it threatens to drive you insane in the meantime, there's a dillorc > option. > > > Do you think we should put image/stylesheet redirection under its control? I guess, if we would also restrict redirects, we could guarantee, that we only load from a domain the user has entered at the loacation bar or clicked on in a link - which sounds reasonable to me. OTH do we know how that would affect usability with major sites? Cheers, Johannes BTW. I also updated the display branch accordingly.

April 7, 2010

web bug save?

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 07:07:50PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > I'd only suggest considering whether adding a URL flag (e.g. > > > URL_FilterOut) provides more flexibility/clarity without having > > > to add the 'requester' parameter to the API. > > > > Can you elaborate a bit on how/where the flag would be set, and > > how it would help? > > I haven't looked at it in enough depth to offer a good > alternative yet. Just noticed of the API changes, made an extra > couple of passes above the code considering the flag or having > referer in the DilloUrl struct. > > The idea is to commit it and to consider the alternatives > later. All right, then. Committed. Everyone: 1) This will surely require various tweaks. 2) If it threatens to drive you insane in the meantime, there's a dillorc option. Do you think we should put image/stylesheet redirection under its control? [for reference, this thread dates back to http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-December/007118.html ]

April 6, 2010

css :visited and security

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 07:18:26PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Johannes wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:36:24PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > > The other day, I saw another of those pages about using :visited and > > > display in order to allow others to learn whether the user has visited > > > a page. (I remember Johannes pointing to a page about this last year, too.) > > > > > > I wonder whether it would be sensible to have a dillorc option defaulting > > > to NO for whether to use :visited. > > > > Yes, that sounds good. We should distinguish between remote / > > embedded CSS and user agent and user stylesheet though. > > For the latter two we don't need any restrictions. > > Does this look right? I'm also currently thinking about this issue - reminded by this article: http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2010/03/31/plugging-the-css-history-leak/ Maybe the fix implemented in your patch is too drastic. I would hope that something like the solution presented in the article above would be enough. If so, I would simply hardcode it and not make an option to disable it. Cheers, Johannes

April 5, 2010

css :visited and security

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Johannes wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:36:24PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > The other day, I saw another of those pages about using :visited and > > display in order to allow others to learn whether the user has visited > > a page. (I remember Johannes pointing to a page about this last year, too.) > > > > I wonder whether it would be sensible to have a dillorc option defaulting > > to NO for whether to use :visited. > > Yes, that sounds good. We should distinguish between remote / > embedded CSS and user agent and user stylesheet though. > For the latter two we don't need any restrictions. Does this look right?

April 5, 2010

line-height

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 12:34:40AM +0000, corvid wrote: > Just committed some line-height code that Johannes and I wrote. Cool, good to have this in the official repo now. > > When line-height is less than the font's ascent+descent, unhighlighting > gets confused. I think it has to do with using the line dimensions for > 'area' for drawing the background. I'll dig into it a little more later on. > > PS I see that firefox puts more space between its paragraphs than we do. > Their value seems to be related to the font size, or the default font size, > or something. Is there anything deep behind our use of 9? I don't know where our 9 comes from. For firefox i guess it's the p, dl, multicol { display: block; margin: 1em 0; } from the useragent style[1], which would explain, why it scales with the font size. Cheers, Johannes [1] http://hell.meiert.org/core/css/firefox-3.0.1.css

April 4, 2010

line-height

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Just committed some line-height code that Johannes and I wrote. When line-height is less than the font's ascent+descent, unhighlighting gets confused. I think it has to do with using the line dimensions for 'area' for drawing the background. I'll dig into it a little more later on. PS I see that firefox puts more space between its paragraphs than we do. Their value seems to be related to the font size, or the default font size, or something. Is there anything deep behind our use of 9?

April 4, 2010

[matthew.t.craig@gmail.com: dillo question]

by Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de

> > hello .. started using dillo on a lemote yeeloong, which runs firefox slowly > dillo works great for me there! nice! > is there a way to use dillo with liferea feed reader, so links open > within dillo on a new tab? currently we don't have that feature, but it would definately be doable. There was a similar discussion some time ago: http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-October/006912.html Cheers, Johannes

April 2, 2010

[matthew.t.craig@gmail.com: dillo question]

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, -- Cheers Jorge.-

April 1, 2010

[jeffdewe@gmail.com: Dillo]

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, In a nutshell: * FLTK2 halves the memory footprint of GTK1 [1]. * GTK2 is bigger and can double GTK1 [2] (4x factor). This means the increased binary size of a FLTK2 dillo static binary is compensated after browsing a couple of pages. I hope FLTK stops being a problem when FLTK-1.3 is released and included in the distros repos. We'll switch to it as soon as the release is available. [1] http://www.dillo.org/memory.html [2] http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2006-September/003097.ht… -- Cheers Jorge.-

April 1, 2010