Hi, On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 06:40:33PM +0200, a1ex@dismail.de wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 15:39:01 +0200 Rodrigo Arias <rodarima@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm also thinking we may want to also include the icons, so we avoid the problem of having a single icon that must support dark and light backgrounds. In this case, maybe a layout like this may be more useful:
~/.dillo/theme/<name>/style.css ~/.dillo/theme/<name>/icons.png
I agree that themed icons would be very nice, so your layout here makes sense.
Might be a bit of work to get Dillo to use icons.png instead of the built-in pixmaps.h though :)
Anyway, it sounds like this will be a pretty complicated patch. Not sure where I can help, but can try if desired on smaller parts.
Not sure if it would be an easy patch. You may want to review the issues in case you find some that seems more approachable. https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo/issues I would also appreciate if someone can test this PR by doing some daily google searches over a week or so with the cookies disabled for google: https://github.com/dillo-browser/dillo/pull/251 The question is if it is better to leave the ucbcb=1 parameter in the URL by default or not: search_url="Google https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gbv=1&ucbcb=1&q=%s" I tried to skip the consent dialog by denying it by default so it doesn't appear, but I get mixed results even without cookies disabled. Some times it appears again and others it doesn't, not sure how they determine when it should appear. Maybe it is better to leave it out. Testing this PR would be helpful and doesn't require much effort, in case you are interested. I can only do limited tests before Google fingerprints my IP and then it never ask me consent again. (And yes, I'm aware of the implications of using Google, but it is the only search engine that gives me any result in very weird searches like part numbers of unknown electrical components) Best, Rodrigo.