Re: [STUMP] Re: Re: conkeror

[Shawn Betts]

Nikolai Weibull <address@hidden> writes:

> Hm, what I'd really like would be something that would act like EMACS
> frames and buffers:
> 
> A single window can contain multiple buffers (like tabs, but no tab-bar)
> and there can be multiple windows for various "buffer-groups".  That
> would really be sweet.  Saves another 20-30px by removing tab bar, which
> actually only works as a simple selector for the above behavior.

Well, that's sort of what conkeror has right now. The Browser area is
a window with multiple buffers. Use C-x b to select one, just like
emacs. or A-p and A-n to cycle through them.

I'm working on full window splits ala Emacs right now. It's a bit
trickier than I thought because of mozilla gui limitations. I still
have tricks in my hat to try.
 
> > There's i-search, which is like typeahead but it's what they meant to
> > do. When you search for a match it will only find matches below the
> > top of the window until you wrap. it's almost identical to emacs'
> > i-search.
> 
> Hm, well, with caret browsing this is what you get I think.

The problem is that caret browsing is broken, IMO.

> > It has numbered links. So you just have to type the number of the link
> > rather than navigate a cursor or a mouse pointer to it.
> 
> Yeah, there are still some bugs in the code it seems and it can be
> annoying on quite a few sites that have links everywhere.  It's a good
> idea though.

Can you post the problems/annoyances to address@hidden

> OK.  Some ideas:
> 
> 1.  Configurable key-bindings.  This would allow me to use the
>     user-interface, while retaining my Vi-like keybindings.  I know that
>     this isn't really an issue with your overlay/chrome or anything, but
>     once the bugs holding this back are resolved, it would be nice.

I'm in the process of fixing up the code to allow configurable key
bindings (and just plain sane code). I'm not sure you'd be able to get
the VI dual mode thang working without some hacking, tho.

> 2.  I'm guessing it would be more work than the reward is worth, but an
>     idea would be to not implement it as a "plugin" to mozilla, but as a
>     completely separate browser, using only the most basic XUL/JS from
>     the standard Mozilla/Firefox tree and the necessary libraries.
>     This would remove any unnecessary cruft one would otherwise inherit.
>     I'm not familiar with the setup, but I'm guessing that a lot could
>     be removed without any loss.

Yeah, I've wanted to do this. There's plenty of junk, but it seems
like a LOT of work. One Day, I think I'll try to do this... but until
then, feel free to try :).

-Shawn