Re: eww and bookmarks

[Basil L. Contovounesios]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

> "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes:
>
>> > Yes, I know about the hook.  But just binding it will not be enough
>> > because the binding will be gone when it is consulted.  We would have to
>> > add a self-removing function at least to the local binding of the hook.
>> > That's what I would call a hack.
>>
>> Why?  It's what minibuffer-with-setup-hook does, for example.
>
> That can use `unwind-protect' because it has not to wait an undefined
> period of time (until the page has been retrieved asynchronously).
>
> So we would have to consider what could happen if the user aborts
> loading the page, the url can't be retrieved, there is an intermediate
> error, and such.  That's why I think using the callback of
> `url-retrieve' would be better/cleaner.

Could you store the desired callback or other values in eww-data?

-- 
Basil