2009/10/24 Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Anselm R Garbe <ans...@garbe.us> wrote: >> 2009/10/21 Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com>: >>> Surf should *not* handle downloads or display source, this are clearly >>> and obviously best handled by external tools and there is zero reason >>> for them to be part of any browser. >> >> I disagree with downloads, because several stuff can't be download >> without dealing with a valid session and it is a pain to download >> stuff that requires session info using wget. > > Wget can use the browser's cookies, so in theory this should not be a > problem, but you are probably right that I underestimated how > braindamaged the web is and there might be sites where making this > work would be tricky. > >> I have no strong feeling about source viewing, doesn't need to be >> build-in, but since it's already implemented by webkit the source >> viewing and profiling info of WebKit might be worth being made >> accessible through surf, it'll help those who have to debug some web >> stuff from time to time or that are masochists about analysing JS and >> overall download performance similar to firebug. Usually no external >> tool can provide this information correctly. > > That might be the case, but none of those things are the job of a web > browser, and if somebody > wants to do that kind of work, they can install some braindead > browsers that supports all that crap. And just because webkit > 'implements' most of it is no excuse, the cost is not just in code, > but in complexity of interface. Something as insignificant and lame as > source viewing is added to surf, and we already have got people > reporting problems with it. > > Also 'view source' is an instance of a much more general issue: > passing the contents of the current page to an external program. This > should be supported as this fits well with the core function of a > browser, displaying the source of a page does not. > > To put a more concrete example: perhaps somebody wants to look at the > source using less(1), or rio's win, or perhaps the user just wants to > save (cat > foo.html) the source, or god know what, maybe one wants to > pass the source to a script that extracts the img links from the > source and downloads them, or billion other possibilities all of which > should be supported but should in no way be built into surf.
I agree. Kind regards, Anselm
