Re: what's currently broken in dillo

I'm imagining, but I have no code, writing stream filters to edit
websites until I like them.  My first proposed victim would be gmail,
to make plain html gmail take less vertical real-estate on my width of
monitor.

This would be fairly un-userproof.

On 1/4/15, Jorge Arellano Cid <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Sebastian Geerken wrote:
>> On Fr, Jan 02, 2015, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
>> >   It's a bit sad to find time and again that 3.0.4 has better rendering
>> > than the new branch. (e.g. [1])
>>
>> The new branch is still in development.
>
>   Sure.
>
>   BTW, there're also cases where it renders better than 3.0.4 (e.g. [1])
>
> [1] http://www.phoenixcentre.com/bodywork/bodywork3-4chakra.htm
>
>   Personally I'm optimistic, see below.
>
>> I'm currently working on another page, which shows a similar behaviour
>> (table with too wide columns); in my case, the reason is a plain bug
>> which will be fixed soon. Hopefully, your case will be similar.
>>
>> There are some other issues:
>>
>> 2. What to do with badly designed pages, which are now less readabe
>>    since dillo supports new CSS attribues? "adjust_min_width" is a
>>    solution to one of those problems.
>
>   3.0.4 came to very reasonable rendering by overriding weird directives,
> and solving corner cases and contradicting values as Firefox. I'm
> proposing to do the same with floats and CSS.
>
>   Somehow even when 3.0.4 decides a layout that's very different from
> the originally intended, it is usable (e.g. [1]). Maybe the same
> strategy can work here.
>
>
>> 3. It may be that incomplete support (say, floats but no absolute
>>    positions) may cause some problems.
>>
>> Anyway, I believe that most reports fall into the first category.
>
>   Yes,  incomplete  support  (an  old constant in dillo) has some
> problems,  but *somehow*, 3.0.4 ended with a rendering logic that
> needed no more tweaks or controls.
>
>   Now  that  we have CSS, floats, and missing absolute positions,
> etc. it may become a bit harder.
>
>   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.
>
>   HTH.
>
>
> --
>   Cheers
>   Jorge.-
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dillo-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
>