Re: [Edbrowse-dev] V 3.5.4

[Adam Thompson <arthompson1990@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2006 bytes --]

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 05:37:14PM -0700, chris@the-brannons.com wrote:
> Karl Dahlke <eklhad@comcast.net> writes:
> 
> > and decide to take the tidy5 plunge, which I think we should,
> 
> Yes, I'm thinking so.  The only troubling bit is document.write /
> innerhtml, which I completely forgot about.  Will tidy5 handle document
> fragments created by those calls, or does this mean that we won't be
> able to use it?  I still haven't done that research.

From what I've seen tidy should be able to handle document fragments.
Since we're converting from tidy's parse tree to our own DOM,
the inserting shouldn't be a problem either.

> > Not a lot of changes but still worth marking I think,
> 
> Yes, I agree.
> I also have nothing ready to go, so if Adam is ok with it, I'll go ahead
> and post 3.5.4.

Yeah go ahead. I think we've made enough changes (particularly in terms of the
plugin system) to do this.

In terms of future release planning,
I guess with tidy5 we'll be wanting to go for 3.6 as the next release since
it's going to include a new library dependancy?

I'm also thinking we should get a stabilised tidy5 based html parser before we
start playing with pulling the DOM into a separate process?
That seems to make the most sense in terms of avoiding breaking things.
It should also allow us to release this code sooner which is a good thing I think.

Next on my edbrowse todo list is to evaluate how ready the duktape js engine
(http://www.duktape.org) is to take over from Mozilla's spidermonkey for edbrowse-js.
It strikes me that we really don't use most of Spidermonkey and that if it'll
do everything we want, duktape's much more suited to our use-case.
In addition, this raises the possibility of moving the js and html stuff back
into an edbrowse-dom process since duktape's in C like the rest of edbrowse.
Plus we get a js engine which is developed to be a js engine and not massively
tied to one browser and usage model.

Cheers,
Adam.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]