From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul R Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why Emacs should have a good web-browser Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:23:35 +0200 Message-ID: <87tz15cbqg.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87ocrjl2r6.fsf@gmail.com> <87zlb2bwyj.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87bpnefl73.fsf@gmail.com> <87iqhm3smc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248255480 9539 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2009 09:38:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ferkiwi+a@gmail.com, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 22 11:37:54 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MTYGl-0001if-Gx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:37:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41786 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTYGk-0002Gv-47 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:37:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTY39-00050d-FS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:23:47 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTY34-0004v6-Du for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:23:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36263 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTY34-0004ux-20 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:23:42 -0400 Original-Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.145]:41923) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTY32-0000GG-0U; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:23:40 -0400 Original-Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so65803eyb.24 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:23:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject:references :date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=IMajcvwwb/bIxETw8Nwa5IIfnfRrmVboZuOqYz8PO1Y=; b=cYWppUoRlIoOBV3jWiCJbPIzsr5IoVsdKZd6YMgONuwEEcNQC3XZnftg7vlM+hMPY5 RMUq73efwhJfMdntIDsNnc0QuSIHQstjwUu6KzQ8HOgPHz9heqmC7VcXcorC3SkDqHYu yOLX4188GOBuRIkscXfIHztXoP7cZybgtiNVg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=Cy0powFTUdeQEYaClxD6J038bDc3eYn3z1CN2p63xQ0Kk/1Rc9ybYtn1gvJLcH2mUm qpUlQ0+vW5Deqnhrh+fPXa6evNTp27T1vesAEAuAIGXnk1gvlVtTNS/kn+LIBhsGbi6C ndxe/PKeyHkUugiuLY+xN/34Z5I1N/R8GsAcM= Original-Received: by 10.210.142.6 with SMTP id p6mr6327902ebd.76.1248254618452; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from ubuT42 (vil35-2-82-227-204-220.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.204.220]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm1099866eyb.25.2009.07.22.02.23.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:23:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87iqhm3smc.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:31:23 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112995 Archived-At: On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:31:23 +0900, Miles Bader said: > Most obviously, it's dynamic, and changing it is expected to be very > cheap even if the buffer is huge. As some others pointed out, you can easily access to a branch of the DOM tree without touching the rest, pretty much like with Emacs. If you want to play with that, install Firefox and its "firebug" extension. Within minute you will be able to live-change parts of your web pages, both the content and the style. > Another issue might be that, to the best of my knowledge, html > rendering engines tend to generate a "rendered" representation of the > entire page, no matter how little of it is displayed (as opposed to > Emacs, which does the most expensive processing mostly only the parts > of a buffer that are displayed). This has obvious benefits (e.g., > scrolling around after the long initial setup can be fast, and your > scrollbar can easily show physical display units), but has obvious > problems too: displaying a 1GB file might take a l.o.n.g time to show > the first page.... Emacs could easily use the big-file-in-many-chunks strategy, the rendering engine would only be a rendering engine, i.e. no direct access to file content. > I don't know how well these engines deal with the underlying text > changing; given that a small text change might affect the _entire_ > "rendered" data structure, there seems a good chance the answer might > be "not very well." Live-editing parts of a big wikipedia article with Firebug is instantaneous on my good old laptop. The only cascading effect I can think of is the visual filling, but now emacs does it as well so I'm not sure it would be worst with a xhtml display engine. -- Paul