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

[Oliver Scholz <alkibiades@gmx.de>]

"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!