From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A52BBAF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:40:35 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEALYcIknVujhf/2dsb2JhbADRU4J5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,624,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="17311853" Received: from witko.kerneis.info ([213.186.56.95]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 18 Nov 2008 10:40:35 +0100 Received: from alf94-4-82-224-79-17.fbx.proxad.net ([82.224.79.17] helo=localhost) by witko.kerneis.info with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L2N4T-0003XZ-4a; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:40:33 +0100 Received: from gabriel by localhost with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L2N4R-0001Oj-Mb; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:40:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:40:31 +0100 From: Gabriel Kerneis To: Burgisser Francois Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [announce] O'Browser : OCaml on browsers Message-ID: <20081118094031.GA4227@kerneis.info> Mail-Followup-To: Burgisser Francois , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr References: <492199E2.1020504@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 82.224.79.17 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gabriel@kerneis.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on witko.kerneis.info); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 wrote:01 pps:01 caml-list:01 jussieu:01 francois:02 manipulate:04 tue:06 efficient:07 sadly:10 maybe:10 announce:12 idea:13 but:14 but:14 On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:14:45PM +0900, Burgisser Francois wrote: > Good idea but maybe a browser plugin to manipulate DOM would be much more > efficient. But, sadly, much less portable. -- Gabriel