Re: [dev] [surf] What Works

On Friday 23 April 08:25, pancake wrote:
> Why do you need to know more C than you to do this? I already do
> this in shellscript..
>
> If the site doesnt works is webkit fault in most of cases. Do
> keeping a list of urls Will be useful for something?
>
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:59 PM, jokke <jokke_AT_usr.fi> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:29:29 +0200, Dieter Plaetinck
> ><dieter_AT_plaetinck.be>
> >wrote:
> >>On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:25:04 -0400
> >>Jacob Todd <jaketodd422_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:47:07PM +0400, anonymous wrote:
> >>>>Do we really need that "What Works" list on
> >>>>http://surf.suckless.org/? It tells reader what sites works with
> >>>>WebKit?
> >>>>
> >>>Some sites do silly things with cookies, and they don't work, or
> >>>don't work too well with surf. I think it's somewhat usefull.
> >>>
> >>
> >>then maybe it's better to list what *doesn't* work, with a short note
> >>why.
> >>
> >>Dieter
> >
> >What Works list would be nice ... and better if someone who knows
> >C better
> >than me could write a patch to surf so when site (hopefully not
> >every forum
> >of hobbies) works, you could just hit hotkey and it submits url (FE
> >http://underdomain.this-site-doesnt-suck.much/ not whole url
> >ofcourse) to
> >the list.
> >
> >- Erno
> >
>
It sure helps to list a bunch of "special" sites that works with surf.
I tried midori and vimprobable (both WebKit "childs") but neither worked
with Google Docs and Calendar. And i was impressed that surf did manage
to log in and display those.
I do not use any of the Google products anymore, but i stayed with
surf.
SO, i believe that the list is a good thing to have...for now...

-- 
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
[-- GPG Public Key:FC26A5D6 --]