On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:40 +0100, "Jens Staal"
wrote:
> Just found this as well. Perhaps interesting, perhaps not...
>
> http://www.directfb.org/index.php?path=Main/News&entry=2010-10-27-0.dok
Webkit/DirectFB eh? Sorry for the late reply, I just wanted to say it's
been a while since I talked to a
Just found this as well. Perhaps interesting, perhaps not...
http://www.directfb.org/index.php?path=Main/News&entry=2010-10-27-0.dok
2010/10/22 Paul Onyschuk :
> What about EFL (Enlightenment Foundation Libraries) Webkit? It isn't so
> feature rich as Chromium or Webkit-gtk, but it's getting ther
What about EFL (Enlightenment Foundation Libraries) Webkit? It isn't so
feature rich as Chromium or Webkit-gtk, but it's getting there with
Samsung pumping money.
There are some desired features [1] on their roadmap, which seems
interesting:
- Remove strict X11 dependency, allowing DirectFB and F
On 10/22/10, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:02:00AM +, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
>> I'd like a Surf interface to Dillo or NetSurf, without any JavaScript
>> support. You only need to interpret JavaScript on web pages that suck.
>> The suckless part of the web is quite usabl
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:02:00AM +, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 10/20/10, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > On 20 October 2010 11:19, Nick wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06 +0100, "Nick" wrote:
> >>> I wonder, has anyone looked at Hubbub/LibCSS, the HTML & CSS rendering
> >>> libraries of N
On 10/20/10, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 20 October 2010 11:19, Nick wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06 +0100, "Nick" wrote:
>>> I wonder, has anyone looked at Hubbub/LibCSS, the HTML & CSS rendering
>>> libraries of NetSurf? I gave them the briefest of glances today, and
>>> they look pretty ni
Excerpts from Wolf Tivy's message of Thu Oct 21 01:15:26 +0200 2010:
> IIRC, chromium is friendlier to static linking, being mostly static already.
> Is ths correct?
I think it's dynamically linked but ships it's own libraries (at least the
pre-built version on linux)
> Instead of going the NetSurf route, I would suggest to re-use the
> chromium source code, even if it's much more monstrous than webkitgtk.
> surf could become a headless chromium where each surf window behaves
> exactly like a chromium tab (+ some dashboard surf window on demand
> like for downl
On 20 October 2010 11:19, Nick wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06 +0100, "Nick" wrote:
>> I wonder, has anyone looked at Hubbub/LibCSS, the HTML & CSS rendering
>> libraries of NetSurf? I gave them the briefest of glances today, and
>> they look pretty nice. They're certainly *a lot* smaller and
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:06 +0100, "Nick" wrote:
> I wonder, has anyone looked at Hubbub/LibCSS, the HTML & CSS rendering
> libraries of NetSurf? I gave them the briefest of glances today, and
> they look pretty nice. They're certainly *a lot* smaller and simpler
> than WebkitGTK.
Sorry, forgot per
So, we all know that Webkit is a mess, and GTK+ for that matter.
However, WebkitGTK does a reasonable job of rendering the mess of the
modern web, hence surf using it.
I wonder, has anyone looked at Hubbub/LibCSS, the HTML & CSS rendering
libraries of NetSurf? I gave them the briefest of glances t
11 matches
Mail list logo
