Some comments on /. stuff :
This is the part where I rhetorically ask why anyone would write a web browser from scratch, the goal of which is to render 100% syntactically correct webpages really really fast. Are there not enough existing web browsers whose goals are to render pages really really fast?
Oh, which ones ? On my P 120, which is my only computer, I tried mozilla and its derivatives - they filled up my 56 Mb of RAM just for loading and took a dozen of minutes to show up even a simple page. This without counting the megabytes they took on my hard-drive. So I had a few choices : either switch back to Windows 98 and Internet Explorer, which *is* in comparison damn fast, or use Lynx on my Debian. Or finding another fast linux-graphical browser. I browsed the net. I tested "browsers" like Chimera2, that no one ever heard about, and was very upset with every browser I tried until I found Dillo. Even if Dillo is very strict regarding HTML compliance of pages, it is, as far as I know, the only Linux graphical browser working correctly on legacy computers.
But I have other things to worry about, and you have other browsers to choose from that render Slashdot just fine.
Yes - it works fine with Lynx. I guess maybe we pushed the issue a little too hard - after all, Slashdot is not the only website that doesn't display correctly on Dillo. As the development philosophy is "stick to the standards", I think we shouldn't care too much about badly formatted pages. Maybe by version 1.0 we can include some kind of "render_uglily_coded_webpage" function to deal with that, but as far as I'm concerned I'm very happy with dillo the way it is. I guess for people like me, who use old computers in everyday's life, using Dillo+Lynx is a very good way of accessing a great part of the web resources. Best regards, Mathieu -- "Just living is not enough," said the butterfly, "one must also have freedom, sunshine, and a little flower." Hans Christian Andersen