"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.3178.1301970383.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On 4/5/11, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: >> After all, I >> *really* want to get around to making my own web browser (based off >> either >> Mozilla or Chromium) - I'm getting really fed up with the current state >> of >> available web browsers. Well, and the web as a whole (god I fucking hate >> the >> web), but one step at a time, I guess). > > I'll be the first to install it. >
Yay, so I'm not the only one after all :) I think the hardest part of the project will be to resist the urge to stick in non-optional code to deliberately screw around with servers that try to push idiotic BS. Somewhat related, but admittedly even more OT: Am I the only one that misses the Sherlock and Watson apps? Back when I was giving OSX a try, those were a big part of what attracted me to OSX in the first place. And then they promptly whithered and died in favor of inferior trends like AJAX and locking data directly into a proprietary viewer (now known as "a website"). (Whatever happened to data interchange and the separation of program and data? I feel like we're back in the stone age when Lotus 1-2-3 data stayed in Lotus, Excel data stayed in Excel, WordPerfect data stayed in WordPerfect, etc. If you want to browse Amazon's stock, you *must* use *the* viewer ("website") that Amazon provides. If you want to check a library's stock, you *must* use *the* [likely horribly broken] viewer ("website") that the library in question provides. If you want to watch a video, you *must* use *the* flash-based viewer that the site provides. Etc. WTF is this, 1989? Meh, more like "1984" apparently...) > Btw, there's a full web browser example in the QtD sources. But it has > to be ported to D2. And then you have to deal with any eventual bugs > along the way. :] Cool, I'll have to take a look. Any idea offhand what rendering engine it uses?