I want to improve Dillo in a bunch of ways, most urgently by adding support for the "expires" HTTP header field, and improving the HTML/CSS rendering. I'm worried, though, that if I submit a huge patch to do one of these things it'd get rejected for not being minimalist enough. DilloNG (which is abandoned) and Dillo+ are both hosted on GitHub, and I'd rather not use that site. I don't want to fork the browser and deal with all the overhead of hosting and distribution. And I definitely don't want to write my own browser from scratch. My question is, would substantially fleshing out the layout and style engines be seen as going against the spirit of Dillo? Would it push too far against the 1.44MB limit?
256@256-32.com wrote:
My question is, would substantially fleshing out the layout and style engines be seen as going against the spirit of Dillo? Would it push too far against the 1.44MB limit?
It's important to keep Dillo as lean as possible for sure, but at this point 1.44MB seems completely arbitrary. If it's getting in the way of real progress, then it's self-defeating to keep that limit. Speaking as someone who has various vintage computers with floppy drives (some of which even run Dillo), I wonder if there is a single person in the world who actually NEEDS to use floppy disks to transport the source code, even in the most impoverished / low-tech areas. In any case, they could transport the source on TWO floppies instead! The idea of poor kids in sub-saharan Africa using Dillo on ancient computers is cute, but they are all probably using smartphones now. (I don't speak for the Dillo project, this is just my personal opinion) Regards, Alex
participants (2)
-
256＠256-32.com -
a1ex＠dismail.de