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

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

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.