posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pmsumner at 04:46pm on 25/06/2003
pmsumner at 04:46pm on 25/06/2003I downloaded and compiled a browser mentioned by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elmyra yesterday, eh. Nice idea. Very small, very fast, very nippy.
Problem being that it failed completely and utterly to render any pages apart from google that I regularly visit. LiveJournal came out horribly.
Had a great day of chatting with people via email, and posted my amazon purchase. Cost me about £2 more than amazon gave me for postage, but for a £20 profit, I am not complaining.
Yeah. Currently listening to Giles Wemmbley-Hogg (2 Ms 2 Gs) on the BBC's listen again section. Fab.
elmyra yesterday, eh. Nice idea. Very small, very fast, very nippy.Problem being that it failed completely and utterly to render any pages apart from google that I regularly visit. LiveJournal came out horribly.
Had a great day of chatting with people via email, and posted my amazon purchase. Cost me about £2 more than amazon gave me for postage, but for a £20 profit, I am not complaining.
Yeah. Currently listening to Giles Wemmbley-Hogg (2 Ms 2 Gs) on the BBC's listen again section. Fab.
(no subject)
(no subject)
It basically said yes, it rocked in speed and size terms. However it must improve it's rendering engine before I will consider using it long term.
(no subject)
The problem I think is that there's always a trade-off between speed and the amount of non-standard code you can render. And let's face it, some of LJ is very dirty code. Also, Dillo doesn't do CSS which is the main problem. Plus it lacks the features that things like Opera and Mozi provide. I don't it could become my browser of choice for quite some time.
Anyway, I think we basically agree on this already. ;-) I shall go forth and crusade for standards compliancy some more now. *g*