I still sometimes need a full bloated web browser for bureaucratic
bullshit, but opera doesn't work well with javascript lately and is
anyways moving to webkit soon. So I need an alternative.
chrome doesn't work since web developers found out about new annoying
features like autocomplete="off" and
I use surf.
Peter
2013/3/10 hiro <23h...@gmail.com>:
> I still sometimes need a full bloated web browser for bureaucratic
> bullshit, but opera doesn't work well with javascript lately and is
> anyways moving to webkit soon. So I need an alternative.
>
> chrome doesn't work since web developers f
my grandma uses IE.
On 10/03/2013, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> are there any other new usable browsers lately? other ideas,
> recommendations?
Netsurf, maybe? It's written in pure C, at least.
http://netsurf-browser.org
Cheers,
Strake
Greetings.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:23:47 +0100 hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> chrome doesn't work since web developers found out about new annoying
> features like autocomplete="off" and onpaste="return.
> I'm not accepting such pedantry, but still I sometimes need working
> javascript and cookie
* hiro 2013-03-10 14:26
> default? is there a list of features not supported so I can check if
> my issues are not covered?
no, of course. this is an ill posed problem. it would take infinite time
and space to write or read.
but feel free to start one. It might turn out to be fun to see what
peo
I tried using netsurf a month or so ago. It seems that the layout
engine is still not very mature, it displays things in a way that
doesn't conform to W3C (whether you care about that is up to you, but
on some websites it looks absolutely awful). As an aside there are
things which make me cringe, l
opera is much faster than netsurf here.
On 3/10/13, Chris Down wrote:
> I tried using netsurf a month or so ago. It seems that the layout
> engine is still not very mature, it displays things in a way that
> doesn't conform to W3C (whether you care about that is up to you, but
> on some websites
On 3/10/13, sta...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
> * hiro 2013-03-10 14:26
>> default? is there a list of features not supported so I can check if
>> my issues are not covered?
>
> no, of course. this is an ill posed problem. it would take infinite time
> and space to write or read.
>
> but feel free to
> Something like the Perl mechanize module is needed for the commandline,
> but it hasn’t been done yet.
why did you not consider something like this?
http://surf.suckless.org/files/autologin
Quoth hiro:
> I don't mean a list of all features imaginable, I mean a list of
> features that exist e.g. in chrome, but are disabled in surf by
> default, for sanity reasons. If you read again what I wrote my concern
> is not lack of features. My biggest problem about web bullshit is that
> it is
> God I hate a lot of the web.
That's the spirit!
Sadly we have to fight against three things: what standards do wrong,
what web browsers do wrong and what web developers do wrong.
I would prefer having a web browser that by default just refuses to
support bullshit like autocomplete="off" or onp
> Of course -sp does basically all of this, but at the expense of quite a
> few sites refusing to work at all.
It doesn't disable HTML features.
Suddenly I've seen there's now also inbuilt video/audio players in web
browsers, such bullshit has to also be disabled by default!
Greetings.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:26:35 +0100 Nick wrote:
> Quoth hiro:
> > I don't mean a list of all features imaginable, I mean a list of
> > features that exist e.g. in chrome, but are disabled in surf by
> > default, for sanity reasons. If you read again what I wrote my concern
> > is not la
* Nick 2013-03-10 16:56
> triggered, no popup blockers seem to work on them (I'd guess adblock
> disables the appropriate .js, though privoxy doesn't out of the
> box.)
same frustration here.
--s.
* hiro 2013-03-10 17:20
> opera you can have usercss and userscripts on a per site basis. Does
> someone have a good working system like that using surf?
> -having to scroll horizontally because some stupid text doesn't fit in
> fullscreen 1024x768 browser window
I have 3 custom css bound to som
> I have 3 custom css bound to some keys.
>
> A per site solution would be implemented in script.js, right? Then, you
> have problem when js is turned off...
Yes, but opera might have enabled that since I last tried it, but just
heard some rumours :(
> Yes, but opera might have enabled that since I last tried it, but just
> heard some rumours :(
And this was related to the per-site javascript
I see that with the general userjs you could check for the site first,
so it would be possible to make per-site CSS and javascripts from
userjs in all c
Greetings.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:20:05 +0100 hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but opera might have enabled that since I last tried it, but just
> > heard some rumours :(
>
> And this was related to the per-site javascript
>
> I see that with the general userjs you could check for the sit
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> does any suckless browser refuse to support these stupid features by
> default? is there a list of features not supported so I can check if
> my issues are not covered?
>
Just that someone mentioned it, there was a web browser writ
Another minimal browser is dillo. It is very small. I don't think it's
rendering is as good as netsurf but follows the same general gist.
- Calvin
On 10 March 2013 09:47, Chris Down wrote:
> I tried using netsurf a month or so ago. It seems that the layout
> engine is still not very mature, it
Greetings.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:09:00 +0100 Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > does any suckless browser refuse to support these stupid features by
> > default? is there a list of features not supported so I can check if
> > my issues are n
22 matches
Mail list logo
