E
Eric
Which browser has the smallest footprint uses the fewest resources?
B
Blinky the Shark
B
Blinky the Shark
Bill said:
Boy, that *is* small.
One thing troubles me: "Implements full HTML 3.2 support plus many HTML
4.0 extensions". Full support of a standard that's years outdated, and
only partial support of 4, which has been supplanted by 4.01. which
isn't mentioned at all. And I see nothing about CSS support.
S
Sanjay Goel
Bill said:
talking abt sizes, checkout http://www.dillo.org/
this gui browser is just 265 kb in size.
not much useful for me to do any productive work though.
and not sure whether its available for windows.
Sanjay
B
Bill Hinds
Blinky the Shark said...
Yeah, it's pretty non-feature-laden, it *will* mangle a webpage every now
and then, and, as you say, it does not support css. I like having the
alternative, though, when I'm in a hurry and don't need all the *stuff* that
comes with the average browser.
Yeah, it's pretty non-feature-laden, it *will* mangle a webpage every now
and then, and, as you say, it does not support css. I like having the
alternative, though, when I'm in a hurry and don't need all the *stuff* that
comes with the average browser.
B
Blinky the Shark
Bill said:
Gosh, if it's still largely stuck in 3.2-land, it's gotta be mangling
more than "now and then".
[q]
HTML 2.0 Defined by the IETF in 1996, based on core work done in 1994.
RFC 1866 (Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0, November 1995) describes this
version.
HTML 3.2 The W3C released this in 1996. It includes tables, applets,
text flow, superscripts, and subscripts.
HTML 4.0 The W3C released this in 1997 with a revision in 1998.
HTML 4.01 The W3C released this in late 1999 to fix bugs in HTML 4.0.
[/q]
http://www.linktionary.com/h/html.html
Lynx and Links are still being developed, FWIW. (And I just learned
that there's a graphical version of Links.)
B
Bill Hinds
Blinky the Shark said...
Actually, OB1 is not as bad as you might think. The bulk of the problems
seem to be with page margins and table alignment, but they're never so bad
(for my purposes, anyway) as to make a page unreadable. I only use it when
I'm working and I want to quickly grab a bit of info. (I'm on dialup.) But
you're right - if you want the page rendered as it was intended, OB1 is not
the browser to use. It *is* puzzling as to why it doesn't support 4.0,
though - the last version was offered 12/02.
Actually, OB1 is not as bad as you might think. The bulk of the problems
seem to be with page margins and table alignment, but they're never so bad
(for my purposes, anyway) as to make a page unreadable. I only use it when
I'm working and I want to quickly grab a bit of info. (I'm on dialup.) But
you're right - if you want the page rendered as it was intended, OB1 is not
the browser to use. It *is* puzzling as to why it doesn't support 4.0,
though - the last version was offered 12/02.
B
Blinky the Shark
Bill said:
But, then, who would want to see the page as it was intended, eh?
Wow. Judging from its standards-awareness, it looked like it had been
dropped back in the 1900s.
T
Tiger
Thanks to Bill.
D
DC
Simon said:
Aw shit. Everyone, keep limbs inside the thread at all times! Hang on, here
we go...!!!
}:O)