[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Oliver Scholz
Subject: Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:00:03 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-msvc-nt5.1.2600)

I wrote:
>>>  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.

And then I wrote:
> [Actually on my system Emacs/W3 is not reliable only in cases, where
> emacs-w3m is not reliable, too: in dealing with images and some
> advanced css stuff (Come to think about it, I doubt that emacs-w3m
> even tries to address the latter). So the main disadvantage is that
> Emacs/w3 is slow. Very slow, to be sure.]

I realize now that theese statements may seem a bit contradictory. I
should add that in the former case I was talking about the CVS version
of Emacs/W3 which I used until recently on my old work station and
which indeed failed to render some pages (
being my main source of grief -- or maybe url.el is to blame
here?). The latest released version (which I use now) works
o.k. AFAICS.

Large pages can get even a new computer on its knees, though. :-(

14 Brumaire an 211 de la Révolution
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]