Hi Sebastian, On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:00:52PM +0100, Sebastian Geerken wrote:
On Sa, Jan 03, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] One solution I've been thinking about is to customize the rendering for each user. In general terms, a user goes to a handful of websites regularly. Those sites are the ones he cares more about.
If we for instance remember that for site X, the user prefers no embedded CSS, that's it.
This would be stored in a plain text file as a simple line. The UI interface, under Tools|Customize may offer something like:
[ ] Remember settings for this page [ ] Remember settings for this site
That's it, after a few simple clicks, problem is gone.
The idea is this to be exceptional, this is, used as an exception for a few sites as general rendering should solve most cases.
FWIW, I'm planning to make a list of these ideas to work on this year and be of help in this area.
First of all, let's see how many problems fall into the "plain bug" category, and so are simple to fix (although it needs work and time).
Yes, sure. Now, with some sites it's not clear whether something is a bug, bad HTML, contradicting directives, etc. IMHO, just there, having an easy (i.e. user ready, click-click) way to customize can help a lot. e.g.[1] Here, I don't know what's wrong, but reading the text in those colors clearly hurts. Avoiding embedded CSS "solves" the problem with one click (from a user perspective). I may try coding it a bit and check how it feels. [1] http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/05/hate-conspiracies/
Partly, this kind of customization is already possible by usage of user style sheets; perhaps we could add a (proprietary) extension for selecting specific sites.
Yes, but this solution requires good knowledge on CSS and HTML and some digging time (as in the example above where we don't know the problem in advance). OTOH, clicking a pair of checkboxes and see whether that helps is much easier. It's a user-level "solution".
While we're at this: Attached is a page which renders differently in dillo and Firefox; the latter closes the "em" implicitely, so that the red box is below (not inside) the green one.
It's very good you discovered this point!
From my understanding,
(i) this is incorrect HTML, but
Yes.
(ii) since "div" is not allowed within "em", this could be easily detected, to mimic Firefox behaviour.
Yes.
This page is a simplified version of a real-word page, and in some cases, the implications for the rendering are quite extreme.
Yes. IMO this is a good place to nail some "rendering bugs" (by reacting as FF to bad HTML). AFAIR, the HTML cleanup heuristics were tuned before DIV was supported! I'll work on this now. Please let me know of any other tags you've found in real pages that mess with DIV in this sense while I work on it (for instance EM is in the phrase set which should be treated similarly). It may end helping rendering of a lot of sites or just a few, who knows, but's definitely worth the try. See attached toy-patch for the test case. -- Cheers Jorge.-