bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#16211: eww should support multiple *eww* buffers


From: Ivan Shmakov
Subject: bug#16211: eww should support multiple *eww* buffers
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:51:49 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> "TZ" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:24:54 +0000 Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> wrote:

 IS> Package: emacs Severity: wishlist

 IS> EWW should support rendering Web pages in more than one buffer
 IS> (akin to “tabs” and “windows” of many other browsers out there.)

 TZ> I agree, but Lars and Stefan may not.  They prefer (based on a
 TZ> discussion in emacs-devel just recently) a more Emacsian behavior
 TZ> where possible, instead of mimicking regular web browsers.

        Well, I have no problem with that: Gnus uses different Summary
        buffers for different groups, M-x mml-preview keeps creating new
        buffers even if called for the very same message buffer, and
        well, find-file isn’t constrained to a single buffer, either.

 IS> PS.  And while there, why not to make the buffer names used by EWW
 IS> customizable, BTW?

 TZ> I agree this functionality would be nice, see `eww-setup-buffer'.
 TZ> Should be pretty trivial.

        Yes, I know: I’ve already patched the code.  (I’ve tried to
        contact assign at gnu dot org for copyright disclaimer papers,
        but haven’t received any reply so far.  And now I guess I’d have
        to wait to the next year due to the holidays, anyway.)

 TZ> I don't see a need for complicated variable passing as you
 TZ> described and I omitted, but have no strong opinion about it
 TZ> either.

        Please note that eww-setup-buffer is called from the buffer
        filled by url-retrieve, and /not/ from one of the EWW buffers.
        I see no obvious way for it to deduce from which buffer the
        original command (say, M-x eww) was called so to get back there.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]