* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
[not found] <mailman.1036345624.19554.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
@ 2002-11-03 17:55 ` Adam P.
2002-11-03 18:38 ` Henrik Enberg
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Adam P. @ 2002-11-03 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Michael J. Barillier" <blackwolf@pcisys.net> writes:
> I've been using w3 off-and-on in the past, but since I'm trying to go
> far more text-centric on my desktop[1] I'd like to do the little web
> browsing that I do from within Emacs. I've downloaded w3 v4.0pre.47
> and have been getting that nasty ``wrong type argument: stringp, nil''
> error[2] that's been mentioned lately. Anyone have an opinion[3] on
> W3 vs. emacs-w3m?
Never managed to get w3 to work properly (I tried v4.Opre.47 at one
point) while w3m works nicely. I've seen lots of comments (on various
emacs lists / newsgroups) in favour of w3m and virtually no opposite
opinions.
Adam
--
Name and address in X-Real...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
[not found] <mailman.1036345624.19554.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2002-11-03 17:55 ` Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m Adam P.
@ 2002-11-03 18:38 ` Henrik Enberg
2002-11-04 15:19 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-05 0:41 ` mr.sparkle
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Henrik Enberg @ 2002-11-03 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Michael J. Barillier" <blackwolf@pcisys.net> writes:
> I've downloaded w3 v4.0pre.47 and have been getting that nasty ``wrong
> type argument: stringp, nil'' error[2] that's been mentioned lately.
Get w3 from CVS.
<http://savannah.gnu.org>
--
Booting... /vmemacs.el
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
[not found] <mailman.1036345624.19554.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2002-11-03 17:55 ` Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m Adam P.
2002-11-03 18:38 ` Henrik Enberg
@ 2002-11-04 15:19 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-04 19:46 ` A. Lucien Meyers
2002-11-05 0:41 ` mr.sparkle
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Scholz @ 2002-11-04 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Michael J. Barillier" <blackwolf@pcisys.net> writes:
[...]
> I've downloaded w3 v4.0pre.47 and have been getting that nasty
> ``wrong type argument: stringp, nil'' error[2] that's been mentioned
> lately.
FWIW, I encountered this error message myself some time ago. In my
case the backtrace told me that it was related to the font size spec
in the default.css in w3/etc. I could get rid of the error by changing
default.css. I don't remember how exactly; it was something with
removing a "+", or somesuch. A backtrace should tell you more. But I
don't know if this is a proper solution (I doubt it).
> Anyone have an opinion[3] on W3 vs. emacs-w3m?
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.
Oliver
--
14 Brumaire an 211 de la Révolution
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
2002-11-04 15:19 ` Oliver Scholz
@ 2002-11-04 19:46 ` A. Lucien Meyers
2002-11-04 20:32 ` Henrik Enberg
2002-11-04 22:30 ` Oliver Scholz
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: A. Lucien Meyers @ 2002-11-04 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
alkibiades@gmx.de (Oliver Scholz):
> "Michael J. Barillier" <blackwolf@pcisys.net> writes:
> [...]
> > I've downloaded w3 v4.0pre.47 and have been getting that nasty
> > ``wrong type argument: stringp, nil'' error[2] that's been mentioned
> > lately.
>
> FWIW, I encountered this error message myself some time ago. In my
> case the backtrace told me that it was related to the font size spec
> in the default.css in w3/etc. I could get rid of the error by changing
> default.css. I don't remember how exactly; it was something with
> removing a "+", or somesuch. A backtrace should tell you more. But I
> don't know if this is a proper solution (I doubt it).
>
> > Anyone have an opinion[3] on W3 vs. emacs-w3m?
>
> 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.
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 .
Am I a w3m fan? Yes. Why? It works.
Lucien
--
If you receive this by error, please delete and inform sender.
www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption using pgp.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
2002-11-04 19:46 ` A. Lucien Meyers
@ 2002-11-04 20:32 ` Henrik Enberg
2002-11-04 22:30 ` Oliver Scholz
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Henrik Enberg @ 2002-11-04 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
2002-11-04 19:46 ` A. Lucien Meyers
2002-11-04 20:32 ` Henrik Enberg
@ 2002-11-04 22:30 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-04 23:00 ` Oliver Scholz
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Scholz @ 2002-11-04 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
"A. Lucien Meyers" <nospam.look@replyto.please.because.this.is.invalid> writes:
> alkibiades@gmx.de (Oliver Scholz):
>> "Michael J. Barillier" <blackwolf@pcisys.net> writes:
[...]
>> > Anyone have an opinion[3] on W3 vs. emacs-w3m?
>>
>> 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.
*hehehe* I don't think that this "Basta" is well applied on a piece of
free software. :-) I would read that statement rather as "Emacs/W3
still needs a lot of work before it is reliable and usable as your
main browser."
[Actually on my system Emacs/W3 is not reliable only in cases, where
emacs-w3m is not reliable, too: in dealing with images and some
advanced css stuff (Come to think about it, I doubt that emacs-w3m
even tries to address the latter). So the main disadvantage is that
Emacs/w3 is slow. Very slow, to be sure.]
I do not want say anything bad against emacs-w3m, but it feels like
the interface to an external console application. (Probably, because
it is one.) While Emacs/W3 -- slow and incomplete and imperfect as it
may be -- has at least the potential to be a full fledged graphical
(!) web browser integrated in Emacs.
I envision Emacs/W3 as the equivalent to Gnus in the far future: the
slowest but most powerful and extensible html browser out
there. O.k. maybe this is rather dreaming ...
But apart from that, I'd like to see it in a broader context: I am
pretty sure that Emacs will get more and more word processing
facilities in the future. I see Emacs/W3 as a component of the Emacs
Integrated Text Processing and Rendering System. As I read W. Perry's
papers about the future of Emacs/W3, he seems to have something like
that in mind.
It is true that Emacs/W3 has suffered some bit rott, because nobody
seems to develop it actively. But this will not change, if we allow it
to become a public opionion that Emacs/W3 should be disregarded.
Finally the OP got the religious flame war he asked for. :-)
> BTW w3m also works quite well as a stand-alone browser under X.
Outside of Emacs I tend to be a lynx fan.
Oliver
--
14 Brumaire an 211 de la Révolution
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
2002-11-04 22:30 ` Oliver Scholz
@ 2002-11-04 23:00 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-05 5:02 ` Michael J. Barillier
[not found] ` <mailman.1036473338.10358.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Scholz @ 2002-11-04 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
I wrote:
>>> 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.
And then I wrote:
> [Actually on my system Emacs/W3 is not reliable only in cases, where
> emacs-w3m is not reliable, too: in dealing with images and some
> advanced css stuff (Come to think about it, I doubt that emacs-w3m
> even tries to address the latter). So the main disadvantage is that
> Emacs/w3 is slow. Very slow, to be sure.]
I realize now that theese statements may seem a bit contradictory. I
should add that in the former case I was talking about the CVS version
of Emacs/W3 which I used until recently on my old work station and
which indeed failed to render some pages (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu
being my main source of grief -- or maybe url.el is to blame
here?). The latest released version (which I use now) works
o.k. AFAICS.
Large pages can get even a new computer on its knees, though. :-(
Oliver
--
14 Brumaire an 211 de la Révolution
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
2002-11-04 22:30 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-04 23:00 ` Oliver Scholz
@ 2002-11-05 5:02 ` Michael J. Barillier
[not found] ` <mailman.1036473338.10358.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michael J. Barillier @ 2002-11-05 5:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Oliver Scholz
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 550 bytes --]
>>>>> "os" == Oliver Scholz <alkibiades@gmx.de> writes:
os> Finally the OP got the religious flame war he asked for. :-)
I wasn't asking for a flame war--merely assumed that my search for
information would draw out strong opinion ...
So what do y'all think of that vi editor? :)
--
Michael J. Barillier
Registered Linux user #125310 <http://counter.li.org/>
``A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.''
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.1036473338.10358.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
[not found] <mailman.1036345624.19554.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-11-04 15:19 ` Oliver Scholz
@ 2002-11-05 0:41 ` mr.sparkle
2002-11-05 13:20 ` Sacha Chua
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: mr.sparkle @ 2002-11-05 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Sun, 03 Nov 2002, blackwolf@pcisys.net wrote:
> I've been using w3 off-and-on in the past, but since I'm trying to
> go far more text-centric on my desktop[1] I'd like to do the little
> web browsing that I do from within Emacs. I've downloaded w3
> v4.0pre.47 and have been getting that nasty ``wrong type argument:
> stringp, nil'' error[2] that's been mentioned lately. Anyone have
> an opinion[3] on W3 vs. emacs-w3m?
>
> [1] Full-screen xterm running screen, with a Mozilla tab (using the
> PWM window manager) as a last resort.
>
> [2] No, I haven't tried to get a backtrace ... sorry.
>
> [3] Heh
I found w3 to be sloooooow. emacs-w3m is reasonably fast and it
renders html nicely. I use emacs-w3m as the browser for html files in
dired and I have no complaints so far.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
2002-11-05 0:41 ` mr.sparkle
@ 2002-11-05 13:20 ` Sacha Chua
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sacha Chua @ 2002-11-05 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
happy@vole.com (mr.sparkle) writes:
> I found w3 to be sloooooow. emacs-w3m is reasonably fast and it
> renders html nicely. I use emacs-w3m as the browser for html files in
> dired and I have no complaints so far.
I briefly checked out ewb (Emacs Web Browser? I think it's on
EmacsWiki), but couldn't get it to run easily. I actually sort of like
Emacs/w3 in console mode (stops it from trying to render graphics and
stuff), although the default colors seem to suck when on a
light-on-dark terminal, so I defined my own CSS and forced its use.
It's actually quite usable, although rendering is slooooooow. I wonder
how that can be improved? I'm fine with not having tables displayed,
although I'd like to be able to navigate through them with keystrokes
and manipulate them with functions.
--
Sacha Chua <sacha@free.net.ph> - 4 BS CS Ateneo geekette
interests: emacs, gnu/linux, wearables, teaching compsci
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
@ 2002-11-03 17:33 Michael J. Barillier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Michael J. Barillier @ 2002-11-03 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 810 bytes --]
I've been using w3 off-and-on in the past, but since I'm trying to go
far more text-centric on my desktop[1] I'd like to do the little web
browsing that I do from within Emacs. I've downloaded w3 v4.0pre.47
and have been getting that nasty ``wrong type argument: stringp, nil''
error[2] that's been mentioned lately. Anyone have an opinion[3] on
W3 vs. emacs-w3m?
[1] Full-screen xterm running screen, with a Mozilla tab (using the
PWM window manager) as a last resort.
[2] No, I haven't tried to get a backtrace ... sorry.
[3] Heh
--
Michael J. Barillier
Registered Linux user #125310 <http://counter.li.org/>
``A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.''
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-11-05 15:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <mailman.1036345624.19554.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2002-11-03 17:55 ` Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m Adam P.
2002-11-03 18:38 ` Henrik Enberg
2002-11-04 15:19 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-04 19:46 ` A. Lucien Meyers
2002-11-04 20:32 ` Henrik Enberg
2002-11-04 22:30 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-04 23:00 ` Oliver Scholz
2002-11-05 5:02 ` Michael J. Barillier
[not found] ` <mailman.1036473338.10358.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2002-11-05 15:47 ` Jay Belanger
2002-11-05 0:41 ` mr.sparkle
2002-11-05 13:20 ` Sacha Chua
2002-11-03 17:33 Michael J. Barillier
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).