Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m

[Henrik Enberg <henrik+news@enberg.org>]

"A. Lucien Meyers" <nospam.look@replyto.please.because.this.is.invalid> writes:

> alkibiades@gmx.de (Oliver Scholz):

>>  IMHO Emacs/W3 feels a lot more emacsish. Well, it is written in Elisp
>>  anyways. I really wish it would be more actively developed, because
>>  actually it is my favourite browser. And yes, I know emacs-w3m and I
>>  use it as a last resort, when Emacs/W3 fails to render a page. I am
>>  not happy with this, though.
>
> Why not, Oliver?  w3m works and works well. w3 does not.  Basta.

  For me it's the other way round.  w3 works for pretty much anything I
  throw at it, once you turned off image loading and use your own
  colors.   emacs-w3m on the other hand won't follow any links for me
  (it just reloads the first page I've viewed) and it frequently freezes
  Emacs so I have to kill it.  

> BTW w3m also works quite well as a stand-alone browser under X.
> Have got w3m to render some sites which mozilla would not grok
> properly, e. g. http://www.lostworldsinc.com .

  I do agree that w3m is buttkickin' good as a stand-alone browser.  It
  is what I use most of the time.  On the other hand, if w3 ever gets
  reasonably fast, I'll switch in a heartbeat.

-- 
Booting... /vmemacs.el