On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:49:01PM +1030, David Kettler wrote: > >In emacs, unmodified alphanumerics are bound to self-insert, which is more > >or less equivalent to Conkeror's concept of a fallthrough. Conkeror's use > >of unmodified alphanumeric bindings is not only very un-emacsy, ... > > But many emacs modes that are "applications" in themselves do use > plain alphabetic keys extensively; e.g. dired, gnus. Conkeror's > bindings are consistent with emacs usage in that sense.
I think the analogy to emacs applications was definitely an important principle early on in the development of Conkeror, but experience has taught us that the analogy quickly breaks down because of the sheer complexity of dealing with DOM documents on the web, as compared to the relative simplicity of working with plain text. DOM documents can be applications in their own right with key bindings that need to be respected, etc. > > >Our concept of modality is really a lot more like vi's UI than emacs's. > > Yeah, bummer. > Haha, I don't see it as a bummer at all. I think it's a gift that a nice program like vi exists, from which we can gain ideas for ways to solve problems for which the emacs UI style is insufficient. -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
