On Friday 23 April 08:25, pancake wrote: > Why do you need to know more C than you to do this? I already do > this in shellscript.. > > If the site doesnt works is webkit fault in most of cases. Do > keeping a list of urls Will be useful for something? > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:59 PM, jokke <jo...@usr.fi> wrote: > > >On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:29:29 +0200, Dieter Plaetinck > ><die...@plaetinck.be> > >wrote: > >>On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:25:04 -0400 > >>Jacob Todd <jaketodd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:47:07PM +0400, anonymous wrote: > >>>>Do we really need that "What Works" list on > >>>>http://surf.suckless.org/? It tells reader what sites works with > >>>>WebKit? > >>>> > >>>Some sites do silly things with cookies, and they don't work, or > >>>don't work too well with surf. I think it's somewhat usefull. > >>> > >> > >>then maybe it's better to list what *doesn't* work, with a short note > >>why. > >> > >>Dieter > > > >What Works list would be nice ... and better if someone who knows > >C better > >than me could write a patch to surf so when site (hopefully not > >every forum > >of hobbies) works, you could just hit hotkey and it submits url (FE > >http://underdomain.this-site-doesnt-suck.much/ not whole url > >ofcourse) to > >the list. > > > >- Erno > > > It sure helps to list a bunch of "special" sites that works with surf. I tried midori and vimprobable (both WebKit "childs") but neither worked with Google Docs and Calendar. And i was impressed that surf did manage to log in and display those. I do not use any of the Google products anymore, but i stayed with surf. SO, i believe that the list is a good thing to have...for now... -- Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. [-- GPG Public Key:FC26A5D6 --]
pgpCA6fHSTB84.pgp
Description: PGP signature
