On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote:
ext Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 12:48:02PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote:
This is not the argument I'm looking for since obviously reduced functionality implies reduced complexity implies quite hopefully increased reliability.
I'm not trying to be nasty here. So it's not the goal of dillo to be compliant with web content?
Have you read the Dillo home page? Particularly:
http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/
This site outlines much of Dillo's "reason for being". Specifically:
Keeping dillo up to date with the dynamic underlying technologies to meet the main objectives, becomes the long term goal.
I believe that should answer your question.
I read that stuff but still am not clear about why it exists if its goal is to compete with Konqueror. It's obvious that you should have Konqueror and Mozilla,
It is?
but it's not obvious that you should have dillo and Konqueror.
How about no Konq at all?
Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https? Do Dillo people believe you can call something a web browser if it does not have support for these? If yes, then it is targeted for a different, limited usage.
What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++
Thanks, Philippe
[I am not a Dillo developer] Apparently you didn't read the information in the provided link, http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/. I could copy and paste the answers to most of your questions from those pages here, but I'm feeling lazy today, para variar. Todd