From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2602:4b:a4e7:4600:12bf:48ff:fe7c:5584]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 287C778638 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:17:45 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Brannon To: Edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com References: <20140128114309.eklhad@comcast.net> <20140228174401.GD19851@toaster.adamthompson.me.uk> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:16:40 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20140228174401.GD19851@toaster.adamthompson.me.uk> (Adam Thompson's message of "Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:44:01 +0000") Message-ID: <87iorzyrmv.fsf@mushroom.PK5001Z> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Edbrowse-dev] Render X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:17:45 -0000 Adam Thompson writes: > However, the more I think about it the more I think it's potentially not the > best direction for edbrowse since it places a lot of dependancy on something > beyond our control, i.e. the stability or otherwise of a js library. True, they're all moving targets. On the other hand, we're pretty much tied to a JS library, so we're going to have to deal with its possible instability anyway. To me, the render-in-JS idea does seem pretty slick. > I also wonder if this'd work in terms of browsing a web page without > js, In the non-JS case, the only thing we ever call is render. We don't evaluate scripts or call form handlers from the page. > or one which defines its own render function. That's easy. Just call it edbrowse_render, to prevent namespace conflicts. Still, we have to make sure that this function can't be overwritten by some script. -- Chris