[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Package "luwak"
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: Package "luwak" |
Date: |
Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:05:49 +0000 |
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > The name "eww" is also unhelpful. Perhaps
> > the merger should be under the name "lynx".
>
> Does EWW work using lynx? If so, that would be a good idea. We would
> replace two unhelpful package names with one name that would be
> helpful and easy to remember.
No it doesn't, EWW uses shr (Simple HTML Renderer) to display websites.
> If EWW does not work using lynx, then renaming it to `lynx' would be
> misleading at one level. We might rather make a different choice.
EWW has been around for a while (I belive 24.4), I don't think it is
viable to rename it now.
> What other packages do we have for looking at web pages? I see there
> is `browse-url'. Is that an alternative to EWW, or just a higherlevel
> confugurable interface to EWW and other options?
No, browse-url is a generic system for requesting a URL be opened in
some browser, be it Firefox, Chrome, EWW, or whatever the default
settings are on a system.
> Are there any more web-browsing packages that we should consider in
> this planning?
None that I know of.
Re: Package "luwak", Yuchen Pei, 2022/12/10
Re: Package "luwak", Yuchen Pei, 2022/12/11
Re: Package "luwak", Stefan Monnier, 2022/12/11