While this mail is meant as a follow-up to http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2011-January/007943.html, I'd first like to tell you that I'm neither a Dillo nor an FLTK developer, but reading the mails from the archive in this discussion thread got me the impression that Dillo uses FLTK 2.0 internally and that it is intended to switch to 1.3. I wonder if this would actually make sense with respect to an anticipated FLTK 3.0, which, following links from the FLTK project website (http://www.fltk.org/) to the FLTK 3 proposal (http://www.fltk.org/articles.php?L1031) and from there to the more detailed explanations' (http://www.fltk.org/links.php?LC+P402+Q) section 2 (http://www.fltk.org/links.php?V404+Q), is described as build on the FLTK 2 API with FLTK 1.3 interna for stability in the last paragraph of the aforementioned text section. I'd like to restate that I have no idea in which ways Dillo and FLTK are actually connected, but it looks to me like it would be a good idea for Dillo developers to check what's planned with FLTK 3 and perhaps get in contact with FLTK developers on this before switching Dillo code based on FLTK 2 to FLTK 1.3, if the only reason for that is to base Dillo code on an API that will see support in the future. Just my two cents, I hope this mail is appropriately placed here, otherwise apologies, for this is my first mail to any mailing list ever and I'm still quite uncertain about how referring to messages in the archived thread actually works. P.S.: The preceding sentence is not entirely true, as I have already tried yesterday to send the above text to the mailing list. As it didn't appear in the archive until now, I've subscribed to the list as a debugging measure and try it again, in case prior subscription to the list is required to send messages to it. In that case, I'd also like to suggest that such a requirement be communicated at the information page (http://www.dillo.org/MListinfo.html).