ext Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote:
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, but it's not obvious that you should have dillo and Konqueror.
How is it obvious that I (or anyone else for that matter) should have Konqueror or Mozilla? Both of these are diametrically against what I'm looking for. I don't run KDE and don't want it's bloat (yes I see it as bloat) on any of my systems. Mozilla is just bloated in it's own right. Firebird (Phoenix) has potential, but is still much to massive for a browser in many places.
Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https?
AFAIK, eventually yes.
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.
Sure. Why not, it browses. So it doesn't have access to some of the newer features of web sites, but it still works amazingly well.
What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++
Memory footprint.
OK, I get the purpose of dillo. Good job is the least I can say, and carry on! And Chris, this is no trolling. We are not all americans out there. Expect different ways of expressing reality.