I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
[Before I get flamed on supposed security issues - system will be
isolated from web by design.]

I would prefer it operate under 64 bit Debian 12.
Operation under i386 Debian 9 would be acceptable.

Any suggestions?
TIA

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 07:43:44AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
[Before I get flamed on supposed security issues - system will be isolated from web by design.]

I would prefer it operate under 64 bit Debian 12.
Operation under i386 Debian 9 would be acceptable.

Any suggestions?
TIA

elinks, lyinx, w3m - all command line.

Dillo / Netsurf

It's also worth having a quick look at Vince's presentation on Netsurf
from mini-DebConf Cambridge 2024

https://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2024/MiniDebConf-Cambridge/waferconf-18-netsurf-past-as-prologue.lq.webm

[Take out the lq. if you want the higher quality / higher bandwidth version]

Maybe also one of the older editors like bluefish which can be set to check HTML and display it as well as edit it.

Hope this helps, all the very best as ever

Andy
([email protected])

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/3/24 8:21 AM, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 07:43:44AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
[Before I get flamed on supposed security issues - system will be isolated >> from web by design.]

I would prefer it operate under 64 bit Debian 12.
Operation under i386 Debian 9 would be acceptable.

Any suggestions?
TIA

elinks, lyinx, w3m - all command line.

Manpage for w3m hints it may be particularly suitable.
Will investigate elinks further as it is in Debian 12 repository.

Dillo / Netsurf

Will investigate Dillo. www.dillo.org has little descriptive info.
Netsurf aims to provide comprehensive rendering of HTML 5 with CSS 2 :{

It's also worth having a quick look at Vince's presentation on Netsurf
from mini-DebConf Cambridge 2024

https://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2024/MiniDebConf-Cambridge/waferconf-18-netsurf-past-as-prologue.lq.webm

[Take out the lq. if you want the higher quality / higher bandwidth version]

Maybe also one of the older editors like bluefish which can be set to check HTML and display it as well as edit it.

My browser history shows I've previously looked at it as a potential
editor. Kate was preferable editor.

Hope this helps, all the very best as ever

Andy
([email protected])

Thanks

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richard Owlett <[email protected]> writes:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
Any suggestions?

Emacs and it's eww mode.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 07:43:44AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.

On 11/3/24 07:51, Richard Owlett wrote:

Manpage for w3m hints it may be particularly suitable.
Will investigate elinks further as it is in Debian 12 repository.

Unfortunately, the source code of w3m indicates that it does support
html5. I can't actually fathom why not-supporting is a hard requirement,
but, trusting your statement, you should probably just use a browser
version that significantly predates HTML5 (since defacto support of that standard presumably predates the full standardization). Maybe target
Firefox 1.0? HTML5 is really old at this point, so you're going to
have trouble finding a browser that doesn't support a significant
part of it.

Best,
Antonio

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/11/24 21:43, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
[Before I get flamed on supposed security issues - system will be
isolated from web by design.]

I would prefer it operate under 64 bit Debian 12.
Operation under i386 Debian 9 would be acceptable.

Any suggestions?
TIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#HTML_version_timeline
shows
"
HTML version timeline
HTML 2
November 24, 1995
HTML 2.0 was published as RFC 1866. Supplemental RFCs added capabilities: November 25, 1995: RFC 1867 (form-based file upload)
May 1996: RFC 1942 (tables)
August 1996: RFC 1980 (client-side image maps)
January 1997: RFC 2070 (internationalization)
HTML 3
January 14, 1997
HTML 3.2[15] was published as a W3C Recommendation. It was the first
version developed and standardized exclusively by the W3C, as the IETF
had closed its HTML Working Group on September 12, 1996.[16]
Initially code-named "Wilbur",[17] HTML 3.2 dropped math formulas
entirely, reconciled overlap among various proprietary extensions and
adopted most of Netscape's visual markup tags. Netscape's blink element
and Microsoft's marquee element were omitted due to a mutual agreement
between the two companies.[13] A markup for mathematical formulas
similar to that of HTML was standardized 14 months later in MathML.
"

So, for HTML 2, you probably want a web browser from 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers
shows, for 1996, the available web browsers were
"
1996 Lynx Netscape Opera IE Mac IE
Jan 2.0B*
Feb
Mar 2.0
Apr 2.0 2.0
May 2.5
Jun
Jul
Aug 3.0 3.0 2.1
Sep 2.6
Oct
Nov
Dec 2.10
"

At
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_web_browser
is
"1996 Amaya 0.9,[48] Arachne 1.0, AWeb, Cyberdog, Internet Explorer 3.0, Netscape Navigator 3.0, Opera 2.0, PowerBrowser 1.5,[49] Voyager"

You want the applicable web browser to run on Debian.

So, you would probably need to be running Lynx 2.6, or Netscape 3.0, or
Opera 2.10, running on Debian Buzz or Debian Rex.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/24 04:21, Bret Busby wrote:

On 3/11/24 21:43, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
[Before I get flamed on supposed security issues - system will be
isolated from web by design.]

I would prefer it operate under 64 bit Debian 12.
Operation under i386 Debian 9 would be acceptable.

Any suggestions?
TIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#HTML_version_timeline
shows
"
HTML version timeline
HTML 2
November 24, 1995
HTML 2.0 was published as RFC 1866. Supplemental RFCs added capabilities: November 25, 1995: RFC 1867 (form-based file upload)
May 1996: RFC 1942 (tables)
August 1996: RFC 1980 (client-side image maps)
January 1997: RFC 2070 (internationalization)
HTML 3
January 14, 1997
HTML 3.2[15] was published as a W3C Recommendation. It was the first
version developed and standardized exclusively by the W3C, as the IETF
had closed its HTML Working Group on September 12, 1996.[16]
Initially code-named "Wilbur",[17] HTML 3.2 dropped math formulas
entirely, reconciled overlap among various proprietary extensions and
adopted most of Netscape's visual markup tags. Netscape's blink element
and Microsoft's marquee element were omitted due to a mutual agreement between the two companies.[13] A markup for mathematical formulas
similar to that of HTML was standardized 14 months later in MathML.
"

So, for HTML 2, you probably want a web browser from 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers
shows, for 1996, the available web browsers were
"
1996    Lynx    Netscape    Opera    IE    Mac IE Jan                    2.0B*
Feb
Mar        2.0
Apr            2.0        2.0
May    2.5
Jun
Jul
Aug        3.0        3.0    2.1
Sep    2.6
Oct
Nov
Dec            2.10
"

At
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_web_browser
is
"1996    Amaya 0.9,[48] Arachne 1.0, AWeb, Cyberdog, Internet Explorer 3.0, Netscape Navigator 3.0, Opera 2.0, PowerBrowser 1.5,[49] Voyager"

You want the applicable web browser to run on Debian.

So, you would probably need to be running Lynx 2.6, or Netscape 3.0, or
Opera 2.10, running on Debian Buzz or Debian Rex.

Sorry - that last sentence should have been instead,
"So, you would probably need to be running Lynx 2.6, or Netscape
Navigator 3.0, or Opera 2.10, running on Debian Buzz or Debian Rex."

I was referring to only the web browser component, and, in version 3.0, Netscape had more.

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape is
"
Netscape Navigator was Netscape's web browser from versions 1.0–4.8. The first beta versions were released in 1994 and were called Mosaic and
later Mosaic Netscape. Then, a legal challenge from the National Center
for Supercomputing Applications (makers of NCSA Mosaic), which many of Netscape's founders used to develop, led to the name Netscape Navigator.
The company's name also changed from Mosaic Communications Corporation
to Netscape Communications Corporation.

The browser was easily the most advanced available and so was an instant success, becoming a market leader while still in beta. Netscape's
feature-count and market share continued to grow rapidly after version
1.0 was released. Version 2.0 added a full email reader called Netscape
Mail, thus transforming Netscape from a single-purpose web browser to an Internet suite. The email client's main distinguishing feature was its
ability to display HTML email. During this period, the entire suite was
called Netscape Navigator.

Version 3.0 of Netscape (the first beta was codenamed "Atlas") was the
first to face any serious competition in the form of Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0. But Netscape remained the most popular browser at that time.

Netscape also released a Gold version of Navigator 3.0 that incorporated WYSIWYG editing with drag and drop between web editor and email components.
"

Okay, what I meant, was the web browser component of Netscape Navigator
3.0 ...

Probably just simpler, if you want a minimalist web browser for HTML 2,
is to run Lynx 2.6 on Debian Buzz or Debian Rex.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon 04 Nov 2024 at 05:38:00 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:

On 4/11/24 04:21, Bret Busby wrote:

On 3/11/24 21:43, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.
[Before I get flamed on supposed security issues - system will
be isolated from web by design.]

I would prefer it operate under 64 bit Debian 12.
Operation under i386 Debian 9 would be acceptable.

Any suggestions?

Probably just simpler, if you want a minimalist web browser for HTML
2, is to run Lynx 2.6 on Debian Buzz or Debian Rex.

Somewhat closer to Debian 9 would be running Amaya, which was
last released on Debian 3.1 (sarge), I believe, as amaya 8.5.
I think a WYSIWYG HTML editor might qualify as a viewer.

https://www.w3.org/Amaya/ says that the latest version, 11.4.4,
about 12 years old, is available, and offers support for
HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, XHTML Basic, XHTML 1.1, HTTP 1.1, MathML 2.0,
many CSS 2 features, and SVG.

There are 32- and 64-bit versions available as .deb packages,
around 20MB. They would be about five years older then Debian 9's
actual release date.

Cheers,
David.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 12:18:39PM -0700, Antonio Russo wrote:

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 07:43:44AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.

On 11/3/24 07:51, Richard Owlett wrote:

Manpage for w3m hints it may be particularly suitable.
Will investigate elinks further as it is in Debian 12 repository.

Unfortunately, the source code of w3m indicates that it does support
html5. I can't actually fathom why not-supporting is a hard requirement,

OTOH, html5 is a large rubber band -- a "living standard" [1] in the
jargon, which is just an euphemism for "we do whatever we please, and
you either follow along or go bust".

The "we" being whoever has the spare change to keep a team of engineers
halfway fed.

Cheers
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5
--
t

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCZyhcDAAKCRAFyCz1etHa RnusAJ9zTxQgM34d+hMxAyxf502GNeMPegCeP596l+uZd196IUrRuttzgGyzPcI=
=XGiZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 07:43:44AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.

I can see why you might THINK this is a good requirement: you're
probably thinking that by only wanting minimal features you could use
simple, robust software. However, I think it's a bad requirement that is severely restricting your choices here.

I think it is likely that any HTML browser would be expected to render
modern HTML, and any browser that doesn't would have a very tiny user
base.

Installing 20+ year old software just to make sure it can never parse
HTML5 is total lunacy. There will be no support community for such a
thing for a start, so any problem you have is going to be a showstopper.

If you want simple robust output and behaviour I think it's probably
better to get that by making sure the CONTENT is very simple HTML. Then
you get to choose from every web browser that exists today.

Any suggestions?

Make simple HTML and view it with whatever you currently use to browse
the web.

Consider writing content in Markdown instead and using pandoc to turn
that into HTML and/or PDF.

Thanks,
Andy

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 3 Nov 2024, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.
I would really prefer a product aimed at HTML 2.
In any case CSS and/or JavaScript will not be used.

You do not say whether you will be writing HTML or whether you will simply read it.

If you are writing HTML, then you need to decide on your DTD and validate against it. If you want something really simple, try ISO-HTML [ISO/IEC 15445] which is smaller than the W3C's HTML Strict.

ISO-HTML was developed to put the weight of the ISO/IEC behind the W3C and help them hold the core of the HyperText Markup Language steady whilst under commercial pressure. See https://rogerprice.org/15445/15445.html for the User's Guide, which includes the full text of the Standard, and the DTD.

Roger

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 06:00:03AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 07:43:44AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm working on a weird personal proof-of-concept project.
A HTML 5 compatible browser will *NOT* be considered.

I can see why you might THINK this is a good requirement: you're
probably thinking that by only wanting minimal features you could use
simple, robust software. However, I think it's a bad requirement that is severely restricting your choices here.

This - I wish Martin Wheeler were still around to give me some authoritative steer.

HTML was, essentially, a subset of SGML at one point. if you write your
HTML with the appropriate Document Type Definition, you limit yourself
to the features supported by that DTD.

You can *write* HTML 2.0 or 3.2 or 4.01 and the parser parsing it will
spit out any features that are not supported. Amaya was intended as
an editor and a parser by the W3C, for example.

I think it is likely that any HTML browser would be expected to render
modern HTML, and any browser that doesn't would have a very tiny user
base.

HTML itself, as distinct from CSS, is largely backwards compatible.
The Wayback Machine read my website in the 1990s and it's still
readable and printable in a modern browser.

Installing 20+ year old software just to make sure it can never parse
HTML5 is total lunacy. There will be no support community for such a
thing for a start, so any problem you have is going to be a showstopper.

Richard - your quest makes me think of the following analogy:

"I would like to remind myself how driving was in the 1960s - so I'll
build a replica 1960s car" - no, go and find an enthusiast to let you
drive a Ford Anglia or whatever for an hour and remember both how good
and how bad it was. Let them have the problems :)

If you want simple robust output and behaviour I think it's probably
better to get that by making sure the CONTENT is very simple HTML. Then
you get to choose from every web browser that exists today.

All absolutely true - Andy Smith is correct here.

Any suggestions?

Consider writing content in Markdown instead and using pandoc to turn
that into HTML and/or PDF.

Good suggestion, Andy - but that would be *another* rabbit hole for
Richard to go down and for the list readers to trouble shoot and
problem solve in due course.

Thanks,
Andy

All the very best to all, as ever,

Andrew Cater
([email protected])


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4 Nov 2024 06:00 +0000, from [email protected] (Andy Smith):

Installing 20+ year old software just to make sure it can never parse
HTML5 is total lunacy. There will be no support community for such a
thing for a start, so any problem you have is going to be a showstopper.

Also, it shouldn't be particularly difficult, if one is so inclined,
to create a file which (short of the doctype declaration) is
_simultaneously_ valid HTML 2.0 (to say nothing of HTML 4) and HTML 5.
Kind of like how _by design_ anything that is valid 7-bit US-ASCII is
also simultaneously valid as UTF-8 representing the same Unicode code
points.

Yes, later versions of HTML have _added_ quite a lot of stuff, and
perhaps slightly changed the default _semantics_ of some; but very
little has been _removed_. (One biggie might be <FONT>, which was
deprecated as of HTML 4.01[1] and appears to be nonexistent in HTML
5[2].)

[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.2

[2]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/indices.html#elements-3

--
Michael Kjörling
🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/24 18:56, Michael Kjörling wrote:

On 4 Nov 2024 06:00 +0000, from [email protected] (Andy Smith):

Installing 20+ year old software just to make sure it can never parse
HTML5 is total lunacy. There will be no support community for such a
thing for a start, so any problem you have is going to be a showstopper.

Also, it shouldn't be particularly difficult, if one is so inclined,
to create a file which (short of the doctype declaration) is
_simultaneously_ valid HTML 2.0 (to say nothing of HTML 4) and HTML 5.
Kind of like how _by design_ anything that is valid 7-bit US-ASCII is
also simultaneously valid as UTF-8 representing the same Unicode code
points.

Yes, later versions of HTML have _added_ quite a lot of stuff, and
perhaps slightly changed the default _semantics_ of some; but very
little has been _removed_. (One biggie might be <FONT>, which was
deprecated as of HTML 4.01[1] and appears to be nonexistent in HTML
5[2].)

[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.2

[2]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/indices.html#elements-3

As a person who writes web sites in HTML 3, I believe that frames have
been deprecated, and, I believe that the bolding ( <B>Bold</B> ) has
also been deprecated and replaced with strong or something similar.

What works and does not work, of what has been deprecated, can also
depend on the individual browser, and, what each inmdividual browser
will allow or not.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4 Nov 2024 19:30 +0800, from [email protected] (Bret Busby):

Yes, later versions of HTML have _added_ quite a lot of stuff, and
perhaps slightly changed the default _semantics_ of some; but very
little has been _removed_. (One biggie might be <FONT>, which was
deprecated as of HTML 4.01[1] and appears to be nonexistent in HTML
5[2].)

[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.2

[2]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/indices.html#elements-3

As a person who writes web sites in HTML 3, I believe that frames have been deprecated, and, I believe that the bolding ( <B>Bold</B> ) has also been deprecated and replaced with strong or something similar.

No need to believe. HTML 3[1] offers <B> but not <STRONG>. HTML
4[2][3][4] offers <B> and <STRONG>. HTML 5[5][6] offers <B> and
<STRONG>.

<B> is purely _presentational_, whereas <STRONG> indicates
_importance_. The difference matters for example to accessibility
tools such as screen readers.

Frames were current up through HTML 4[7] but are non-conformant in
HTML 5[8], although interestingly enough still described[9].


[1]: https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/emphasis.html

[2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/index/elements.html

[3]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#edef-B

[4]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#edef-STRONG

[5]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-b-element

[6]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-strong-element

[7]: https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#edef-FRAMESET

[8]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features

[9]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#frames

--
Michael Kjörling
🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Frames were current up through HTML 4[7] but are non-conformant in
HTML 5[8], although interestingly enough still described[9].

Not sure if we're talking about the same "frames", but uMatrix has
a column dedicated to frames and I see it used fairly frequently for
captchas and online credit card payment elements.


Stefan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4 Nov 2024 09:36 -0500, from [email protected] (Stefan Monnier):

Frames were current up through HTML 4[7] but are non-conformant in
HTML 5[8], although interestingly enough still described[9].

Not sure if we're talking about the same "frames", but uMatrix has
a column dedicated to frames and I see it used fairly frequently for
captchas and online credit card payment elements.

That probably includes iframes (inline frames). I was talking about
the HTML pre-5 <FRAMESET> and related tags.

--
Michael Kjörling
🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Frames were current up through HTML 4[7] but are non-conformant in
HTML 5[8], although interestingly enough still described[9].

Not sure if we're talking about the same "frames", but uMatrix has
a column dedicated to frames and I see it used fairly frequently for
captchas and online credit card payment elements.

That probably includes iframes (inline frames). I was talking about
the HTML pre-5 <FRAMESET> and related tags.

Ah, thanks, makes sense!


Stefan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

I do not know, if this is what you are searching for, but take a look at bluegriffon

https://www.bluegriffon.org

Also (if it must not the super modern tool), you can try "kompozer" or its successor "NVU" (but I believe, NVU is only for MAC and Windows).

You searched for "small", but small is relative. There is also "Amaya", but maybe it is too big.

Also you may like "Geany", which shall also be very small.

Hope it helps, though....

Best regards

Hans

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/24 23:26, Michael Kjörling wrote:

On 4 Nov 2024 09:36 -0500, from [email protected] (Stefan Monnier):

Frames were current up through HTML 4[7] but are non-conformant in
HTML 5[8], although interestingly enough still described[9].

Not sure if we're talking about the same "frames", but uMatrix has
a column dedicated to frames and I see it used fairly frequently for
captchas and online credit card payment elements.

That probably includes iframes (inline frames). I was talking about
the HTML pre-5 <FRAMESET> and related tags.

It was also the <FRAMESET> and <FRAME> tags, to which I had previously referred. Insofar as I am aware, some or most HTML 5 web browsers do not recognise these frames, to the extent that I had to abandon the use of
frames. I had found these frames, to have been quite useful, in the web
sites that I had developed and maintained.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)