...tidy...
OK, your response ( and the others ) has convinced me that this was a bad idea :)
:-) More generally, my point was: there's a lot to do to improve Dillo, let's not waste our time fixing problems that are not supposed to exist in the first place.
I realize this thread comes up periodically, I only mentioned it this time because it was a way of minimizing the problem outside of the core, by reusing existing tools (like tidy). Also, it gets tiresome loading up another browser after a while with large sites, like slashdot, that can't easily fix their problems. ( That's one downside of using dillo - once you get used it, it's hard to tolerate anything else :)
Tidy is actually an excellent idea ... server side :-) This /. guy should give it a try. On the other hand, fixing a broken page client side everytime it's loaded really sounds terrible. About the list of excuses given for not fixing the bug right away, the only real one is the management's priorities. As for the rest, I would just say: - not fixing bugs because some customers rely on them is bad for business; - not fixing bugs beacuse it has a lot of dependencies tell the design is probably wrong; - not fixing bugs because "it's complicated" is really lame; - "why would anybody write a browser from scratch?" why would anybody do anyting? let's all use windos and IE6! Best, EG