Re: [dev] uzbl

From: Charlie Kester <>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:31:21 -0700

On Sun 24 May 2009 at 09:11:37 PDT Leonardo Taccari wrote:
>I agree with you Enno, I think that uzbl can became a very interesting
>browser because it's trying to follow the Unix way and at the same time
>its rendering, thanks to Webkit, isn't bad.

I haven't had a chance to try uzbl yet, but I agree, based on what I
read on the website.

Writing an html renderer is not a simple task, so I understand the
decision to use an existing one (webkit) rather than set out to write a
new, suckless one. This allows the project to focus on getting the
Unix-style interface right -- which is, after all, the most interesting
thing about the project.

Perhaps later, once the UI proof-of-concept is completed, someone will
apply themselves to the task of creating a suckless web engine.

>About options I think too that using getopt(3) style options is
>simpler, at least for the user but at this state of the development
>it's just a small detail (and probably writing a patch to fix this
>behaviour isn't very hard).

One thing about the command line bothers me. Why does

    uzbl -u URI

need that -u switch? Why not simply

    uzbl URI

I would also rather have stdin used for html text, not configuration
commands, so that uzbl could be used in a pipeline that generates html
on the fly -- as others have mentioned. For those cases where it's
desired to drive the program externally, I'd use a named pipe, socket or
perhaps even 9P.
Received on Sun May 24 2009 - 18:31:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun May 24 2009 - 18:48:01 UTC