On Thu, Sep 25, Frank de Lange wrote:
It was in reaction to comments from Sebastian that I posed this question to the list. He suggested removing the conditional compile, but I want to know what the list has to say on this. As a quick look at the list archives will show, not everyone likes these new additions to Dillo.
Its not a matter of liking or not, users may simply ignore tabs (and there may perhaps be a _user_ option for alternative presentations of frames). However, conditional compilation makes maintaining more difficult (and since that's the task of Jorge and me, the list is the wrong place to ask), so it is a question whether the reduced binary size outweighs the increased maintaining problems.
I have already removed some preferences which could be combined (frame_blank_in_tab and tab_on_middle_click -> tab_instead_of_window) or which should be defaulted to the new functionality (document_title_use_url). Other suggestions Sebastian made are:
- Remove tab title compression/shortening (I might create a new label widget which compresses/shortens text to a given size for this functionality) - exchange tab_load_in_background with a UI element/choice (I think this should be delayed until Dillo has a preference UI/plugin to avoid unnecessary complexity and one-off solutions)
What I meant is that the link menu should have to entries, "Open link in new tab", and "Open link in new background tab" (or so). Options should reflect different user's taste, while this difference depends on the situation.
- rename "DilloDoc" to something else (I do not agree, DilloDoc is descriptive and short)
In a local, experimental version of dillo, I've added a new module, representing the document in a DOM-like way, and which was this morning renamed from "doc.[ch]" to "doctree.[ch]". Your DilloDoc represents mainly the interface part of the document, there are other aspects. Sebastian