Re: [dev] [surf] next release

2009/10/24 Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us> wrote:
>> 2009/10/21 Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com>:
>>> Surf should *not* handle downloads or display source, this are clearly
>>> and obviously best handled by external tools and there is zero reason
>>> for them to be part of any browser.
>>
>> I disagree with downloads, because several stuff can't be download
>> without dealing with a valid session and it is a pain to download
>> stuff that requires session info using wget.
>
> Wget can use the browser's cookies, so in theory this should not be a
> problem, but you are probably right that I underestimated how
> braindamaged the web is and there might be sites where making this
> work would be tricky.
>
>> I have no strong feeling about source viewing, doesn't need to be
>> build-in, but since it's already implemented by webkit the source
>> viewing and profiling info of WebKit might be worth being made
>> accessible through surf, it'll help those who have to debug some web
>> stuff from time to time or that are masochists about analysing JS and
>> overall download performance similar to firebug. Usually no external
>> tool can provide this information correctly.
>
> That might be the case, but none of those things are the job of a web
> browser, and if somebody
> wants to do that kind of work, they can install some braindead
> browsers that supports all that crap. And just because webkit
> 'implements' most of it is no excuse, the cost is not just in code,
> but in complexity of interface. Something as insignificant and lame as
> source viewing is added to surf, and we already have got people
> reporting problems with it.
>
> Also 'view source' is an instance of a much  more general issue:
> passing the contents of the current page to an external program. This
> should be supported as this fits well with the core function of a
> browser, displaying the source of a page does not.
>
> To put a more concrete example: perhaps somebody wants to look at the
> source using less(1), or rio's win, or perhaps the user just wants to
> save (cat > foo.html) the source, or god know what, maybe one wants to
> pass the source to a script that extracts the img links from the
> source and downloads them, or billion other possibilities all of which
> should be supported but should in no way be built into surf.

I agree.

Kind regards,
Anselm
Received on Sat Oct 24 2009 - 07:45:32 UTC