[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m
From: |
Henrik Enberg |
Subject: |
Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Nov 2002 21:32:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.3.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
"A. Lucien Meyers" <nospam.look@replyto.please.because.this.is.invalid> writes:
> alkibiades@gmx.de (Oliver Scholz):
>> IMHO Emacs/W3 feels a lot more emacsish. Well, it is written in Elisp
>> anyways. I really wish it would be more actively developed, because
>> actually it is my favourite browser. And yes, I know emacs-w3m and I
>> use it as a last resort, when Emacs/W3 fails to render a page. I am
>> not happy with this, though.
>
> Why not, Oliver? w3m works and works well. w3 does not. Basta.
For me it's the other way round. w3 works for pretty much anything I
throw at it, once you turned off image loading and use your own
colors. emacs-w3m on the other hand won't follow any links for me
(it just reloads the first page I've viewed) and it frequently freezes
Emacs so I have to kill it.
> BTW w3m also works quite well as a stand-alone browser under X.
> Have got w3m to render some sites which mozilla would not grok
> properly, e. g. http://www.lostworldsinc.com .
I do agree that w3m is buttkickin' good as a stand-alone browser. It
is what I use most of the time. On the other hand, if w3 ever gets
reasonably fast, I'll switch in a heartbeat.
--
Booting... /vmemacs.el
Re: Holy Wars redux: w3 vs. emacs-w3m, mr.sparkle, 2002/11/04