Greetings, Could anyone tell me why this page is readable with W3m but not with Dillo 0.8.0? http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ A no-java warning appears in both browsers, but w3m displays all the text and Dillo doesn't. Thanks. Great browser. I was happy to dump mozilla for it and don't do java or cookies or plugins. Tom
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:35:20PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
... w3m displays all the text and Dillo doesn't.
Actually Dillo *does*, but the text is black on black. Scroll down to the bottom half of the page and drag the mouse around. You'll see the paragraphs appear (in white on white). I'm not sure why the text has been pushed halfway down the page. There's an enormous empty image "tp.gif" filling the top half of the page, but when I download it separately the image is tiny (1x1 pixel I'd guess). Looks like there's some layout and size munging. Cheers, Jeremy Henty
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:35:20PM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
... w3m displays all the text and Dillo doesn't.
Actually Dillo *does*, but the text is black on black. Scroll down to the bottom half of the page and drag the mouse around. You'll see the paragraphs appear (in white on white).
I'm not sure why the text has been pushed halfway down the page. There's an enormous empty image "tp.gif" filling the top half of the page, but when I download it separately the image is tiny (1x1 pixel I'd guess). Looks like there's some layout and size munging.
Cheers,
Jeremy Henty
Thanks, Jeremy. I found it. Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is? It may as well not be there, right? Tom
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:43:03AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is?
I quite often see web sites that render black on black in dillo. I assume they use some standard trick that dillo doesn't support. I just switch to links to read such sites, and if that doesn't work I give up. I've never found such a site that I cared enough about to bother working out exactly what is going on. So I can't help much more I'm afraid. Cheers, Jeremy Henty
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:18:07PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:43:03AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is?
I quite often see web sites that render black on black in dillo. I assume they use some standard trick that dillo doesn't support. I just switch to links to read such sites, and if that doesn't work I give up. I've never found such a site that I cared enough about to bother working out exactly what is going on. So I can't help much more I'm afraid.
Sure. That's what I've been doing, and it isn't a problem. I just wondered if there was some configuration choice that would easily fix the 'problem'. It sure isn't something the authors should waste any time with, in my estimation. While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here. What is it about the current state of the Web (HTML and/or servers) that necessitates this size? W3m is only .7K and does a great job as a textmode browser. Why so much more just to display static images? Big thanks to Jorge and the gang. Great browser. Tom
* TBlittlefoot <littlefoot8@earthlink.net> [09-04-05 06:56]:
While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here.
if you strip the binary, it's much smaller: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 377828 2005-06-19 05:32 /usr/bin/dillo* -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 07:21:13AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* TBlittlefoot <littlefoot8@earthlink.net> [09-04-05 06:56]:
While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here.
if you strip the binary, it's much smaller: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 377828 2005-06-19 05:32 /usr/bin/dillo*
No kidding...Good news! Mind giving me a clue as to how one does that? Do you need to re-compile? I don't really know what stripped/un-stripped means. $ file `which dillo` /usr/local/bin/dillo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped Okay. I did the obvious and was surprised to find that there is actually a man strip :-) DESCRIPTION GNU strip discards all symbols from object files objfile. The list of object files may include archives. At least one object file must be given. So how do I find that 'one object file' to give? Or does the -s option get around that need? Any important reasons why I _shouldn't_ strip Dillo? Winter _is_ coming...(sorry). Thanks, Patrick, Tom
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:17:00PM +0200, Ivo wrote:
On Sunday 04 September 2005 20:13, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Any important reasons why I _shouldn't_ strip Dillo?
Only if you have it compiled with debugging symbols and want to run gdb on it in case of a segfault or something.
--Ivo
Good. I've had no such problems. The performance of Dillo has been strikingly quick and clean compared to that hog, Moz*. Will run 'strip /usr/local/bin/dillo' as root in the near future. I appreciate your help, Ivo, Tom
TBlittlefoot schrieb: [black text on black background]
I just wondered if there was some configuration choice that would easily fix the 'problem'.
force_my_colors=YES HTH Alexander -- PGP key available Port Payé / Entgelt bezahlt / Postage Paid: http://www.hashcash.org/
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 11:03:26PM +0200, Alexander Becher wrote:
TBlittlefoot schrieb: [black text on black background]
I just wondered if there was some configuration choice that would easily fix the 'problem'.
force_my_colors=YES
Perfect! Thanks for your help, Alexander, Tom
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 04:53:27AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote: <snip>
While we're chatting, Jeremy, just why is dillo as large as it is? (I realize that it is less than 1/10 the size of most browsers) I have 1.3M for the executable here.
What is it about the current state of the Web (HTML and/or servers) that necessitates this size?
W3m is only .7K and does a great job as a textmode browser. Why so much more just to display static images?
Correction. That's .7M. It is actually bigger than Dillo stripped! Tom
On Sunday 04 September 2005 4:18 am, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:43:03AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is?
I quite often see web sites that render black on black in dillo. I assume they use some standard trick that dillo doesn't support.
If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for the text, or possibly doing something nonstandard like putting <font color="white"> at the beginning of the page instead of inside each block element. So the site is either badly designed (relying on two separate technologies instead of one for something as critical as readability) or badly coded (using code that happened to work in Netscape 2 and IE, but fails in a stricter rendering engine). -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote:
On Sunday 04 September 2005 4:18 am, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:43:03AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is?
I quite often see web sites that render black on black in dillo. I assume they use some standard trick that dillo doesn't support.
If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for the text, or possibly doing something nonstandard like putting <font color="white"> at the beginning of the page instead of inside each block element. So the site is either badly designed (relying on two separate technologies instead of one for something as critical as readability) or badly coded (using code that happened to work in Netscape 2 and IE, but fails in a stricter rendering engine).
Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there. Tom
On Sunday 04 September 2005 11:14 am, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there.
Actually, I haven't looked at this particular site -- I was responding to the general case of sites with black-on-black or white-on-white text. But they're both issues to look at. -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:14:38AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote:
If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for the text, or possibly doing something nonstandard like putting <font color="white"> at the beginning of the page instead of inside each block element. So the site is either badly designed (relying on two separate technologies instead of one for something as critical as readability) or badly coded (using code that happened to work in Netscape 2 and IE, but fails in a stricter rendering engine).
Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there.
Please be tactful about doing this. You don't want to come across as saying "Your web site breaks in some bizarre web browser you've never heard of. It's probably because you're incompetent". It's possible the site designer has no interest in browsers that don't support CSS and doesn't want to be bothered by people who use them. It's possible they *know* the coding sucks but are tied to a framework that generates sucky code and are sick and tired of well-meaning bug reports that they can do nothing about. It's possible they won't know what on earth you're talking about. At the very least it would be considerate to examine the HTML first so you can give some details rather than a vague "Your web site's broke". Cheers, Jeremy Henty (who used to be a webmaster)
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 08:25:51PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 11:14:38AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote:
If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for the text, or possibly doing something nonstandard like putting <font color="white"> at the beginning of the page instead of inside each block element. So the site is either badly designed (relying on two separate technologies instead of one for something as critical as readability) or badly coded (using code that happened to work in Netscape 2 and IE, but fails in a stricter rendering engine).
Good, Kelson. I'll send this thread to the webmaster there.
Please be tactful about doing this. You don't want to come across as saying "Your web site breaks in some bizarre web browser you've never heard of. It's probably because you're incompetent". It's possible the site designer has no interest in browsers that don't support CSS and doesn't want to be bothered by people who use them. It's possible they *know* the coding sucks but are tied to a framework that generates sucky code and are sick and tired of well-meaning bug reports that they can do nothing about. It's possible they won't know what on earth you're talking about. At the very least it would be considerate to examine the HTML first so you can give some details rather than a vague "Your web site's broke".
Good advice, Jeremy. I'll be polite and much more general: Myself and a lot of other folks are really tired of all the pointless (in terms of substance) and bandwidth-consuming requisites of a lot of websites these days, where the (erroneous) assumption that we all use the latest version of MSIE seems to reign. A lot of us don't even use Windows and have no intention of getting a high-speed connection to the Internet. We don't do sound or java or cookies or plugins or video. On my perfectly functional and RFC-compliant graphical browser, your page displays as mostly blank. It turns out that the printing is white on white... So I use my textmode browser to view it. Have a nice day. No, Bill Gates and his minions do not run my computer, and if you are going to let him run your website, then it is going to look like garbage on my browser and I'll look for another site where the webmaster has thrown off the yoke of the Dark Lord Gates --- Three OS's from corporate kings in their towers of glass, Seven from valley lords where orchards used to grow, Nine from dotcoms doomed to die, One from the Dark Lord Gates on his dark throne In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie. One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them, In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie. ----------------- :-) Might have gotten a little carried away there! I'm a webmaster, too, Jeremy. I follow the printable standard: What you see with your browser is what you'll see on paper if you print out the webpage. Tom
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:36:57AM -0700, Kelson Vibber wrote:
On Sunday 04 September 2005 4:18 am, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:43:03AM -0700, TBlittlefoot wrote:
Now would you tell me what good black on black or white on white is?
I quite often see web sites that render black on black in dillo. I assume they use some standard trick that dillo doesn't support.
If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for the text, or possibly doing something nonstandard like putting <font color="white"> at the beginning of the page instead of inside each block element. So the site is either badly designed (relying on two separate technologies instead of one for something as critical as readability) or badly coded (using code that happened to work in Netscape 2 and IE, but fails in a stricter rendering engine).
Yes, that's the main cause (invisible text is also used to spam google, but the user seldom notices :). Unfortunately "force_my_colors" will make every page in that Dillo render in the same colors. I'm thinking of adding a togle button to let the user do this on the fly. -- Cheers Jorge.-
* Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
If I were to guess, they're probably using HTML for the background and CSS for the text, ...
Yes, that's the main cause (invisible text is also used to spam google, but the user seldom notices :).
I see this almost every day, since so many sites are built badly. Usually, I inform the webmaster of the problem, but this is like moving a beach one grain of sand at a time. I think I preferred the old behavior of dillo, when selecting text would highlight it with fixed colors instead of inverting the colors.
Unfortunately "force_my_colors" will make every page in that Dillo render in the same colors. I'm thinking of adding a togle button to let the user do this on the fly.
I had to deal with this color problem back in VGA / DOS days. What worked for me was to set the text to either black or white, depending on which had more contrast to the background color. Basically, something like this: text = white if background is brighter than 50% grey: text = black It was sometimes ugly, but always readable. Something like that could be used to automatically make text visible... either all the time, or at least when selecting text with the mouse. (inverting the colors is nice, when the background isn't grey and the text has sufficient contrast, but auto-selecting the colors would be more reliable) Or you could get fancy and invoke it only when the background and text are too similar (say, less than 25% different). But I realize that's the sort of messy kludge dillo tries to avoid. Anyway, it'd be nice if dillo handled invisible text better. Ideally, detect it and log a bug, but override to make the page readable. Or, as you said, add a button to toggle between user colors and page colors. This would be like the user mode versus author mode in opera (which is useful). -- Scott
participants (8)
-
Alexander Becher -
Ivo -
Jeremy Henty -
Jorge Arellano Cid -
Kelson Vibber -
Patrick Shanahan -
Scott Scriven -
TBlittlefoot