Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:26:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: rob <europax@home.com> Cc: Johannes Zwart <johannes@jak.nl>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why not XEmacs, after all? Message-ID: <14767.51857.465740.295504@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <39AF607C.811D6424@home.com> References: <14767.47786.569589.118725@guru.mired.org> <39AF607C.811D6424@home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
rob writes: > After I saw the first post I checked out Xemacs. I have the latest > port, and it doesn't seem to render web pages very well at all. In > fact, I couldn't find a single one that looked right. What am I doing > wrong? At first guess, I'd say you're assuming there's such a thing as "looks right" for a web page. The rendering is controlled by the browser, not the author, and not all browsers render the same way that Netscape and MSIE do. At least some of the time, this has been because those two (which are both variants of NCSA Mosaic) were buggy and the others weren't. Properly written HTML will be readable in any browser if ugly in most of them. HTML written following current popular practices will be readable in the Mosaic browsers, and unreadable in other browsers. > I agree about Netscape. I am waiting for Mozilla with all of the > features for FreeBSD. I will check out w3m today. Rob. Be warned, it's *not* a GUI browser; it runs in an xterm. The pages will probably look less like what you expect than they do in Xemacs. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14767.51857.465740.295504>