On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:57:42 -0400 (CLT) Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Yes, that problem is known since a long time. It was very hard to root down! The good news is that it's solved.
It's not a problem of dillo but of GTK1. details here:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-list/2003-June/msg00289.html
(As Sebastian, I think we'd better solve this with GTK2.)
This is not the same problem. set-focus-chain allows you to program around this problem... The real problem, however, is still there... There is a widget, somewhere, which gets focussed without showing a visible focus cue (this is the problem you described, which could be avoided by setting an explicit focus chain) and - the real problem - does not allow the tab key OR gtk_widget_grab_focus(some_other_widget) to shift away focus from it.
Clashing with other apps. is almost unavoidable (unless we clone), but we have chosen to rely over an underlying cognitive model for our UI. It has been very succesful, and praised!
Now, as a matter of serendipity :), the bouncing keyboard may have shown us both a better way. If we make Ctrl-L focus the location bar (as Ctrl-U does now) and a second Ctrl-L to clear it, that may be a good choice.
Well, Ctrl-U is generally used for 'clear entry' in GTK1 (not in GTK2 though), so I think it is best to use it for that purpose in Dillo as well. For GTK2, following the toolkit default bindings is the logical thing to do.
For now, I'll leave it as explained here:
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-September/001113.htm...
Well, let's just say that I do not agree with all the choices (Ctrl-S for searhc the web? While just about every other application uses that for 'save'? And while searching can be done from the location bar or a search box? Please, no...) and, since I am not only a developer of (my version of) Dillo but also a user, I want my browser to do what I want, not what someone else thinks it should do. Hence the preferences. I guess I'm not the only one who feels like that - I know I'm not - so I feel that user choice is a good thing. Havoc's ideas notwithstanding. By the way, Havoc speaks about 'having good defaults'. Well, I think Dillo has some good defaults. But some defaults are less than good. Those which are - in the user's opinion - less than good can be changed using a preference (in the dillorc or some future preference plugin), those which are fine are left at their default setting. So, the user has as few or many preferences in the preference file as s/he wishes. Ain't choice a beautiful thing? Those who want their I-want-to-be-able-to-control-EVERYTHING app can have it, while those who are happy with the defaults can go by without any preferences at all... Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]