From john at lane.uk.net Thu May 4 20:00:04 2017 From: john at lane.uk.net (John Lane) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 19:00:04 +0100 Subject: [qutebrowser] Perform search engine queries with HTTP POST Message-ID: I use startpage.com as a search engine and it defaults to sending queries as HTTP POST requests. >From https://www.startpage.com/au/protect-privacy-qa.html#hmb > Contrary to other search engines StartPage uses the so-called POST method (instead of the GET method) to keep your search terms out of the logs of webmasters of sites that you reach from our results. Search terms tell a lot about what you are thinking, which is why this is a privacy issue. As far as I know, the search engine setting in QB is GET only: :set searchengines sp = https://startpage.com/do/search?query={} That works (sending a GET), but is it possible to arrange search queries using HTTP POST requests ? I can raise this on GH if it's worth tracking as an issue, perhaps a wishlist item ? From me at the-compiler.org Fri May 5 14:38:47 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:38:47 +0200 Subject: [qutebrowser] Perform search engine queries with HTTP POST In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170505123846.qkdpf6fu2pzbvj5s@hooch.localdomain> Hey John, On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 07:00:04PM +0100, John Lane wrote: > I can raise this on GH if it's worth tracking as an issue, perhaps a > wishlist item ? Please do! It should be possible to add it. Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From me at the-compiler.org Sun May 14 16:24:35 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 16:24:35 +0200 Subject: [qutebrowser] Crowdfunding campaign for new config system and per-domain settings - 3 days remaining! In-Reply-To: <20170418132741.thmlmkt4zm6chiyp@hooch.localdomain> References: <20170418132741.thmlmkt4zm6chiyp@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: <20170514142434.naoijsnzp347gucy@hooch.localdomain> Hey, On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Florian Bruhin wrote: > Like last year, I'd love to spend my summer holidays working full-time > on qutebrowser again! > > This is why I started another crowdfunding - with the goal of finally > implementing the new config system: > > https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/the-compiler/qutebrowser-v10-with-per-domain-settings?ref=6tooiw There are a bit more than three days remaining now. The crowdfunding was very successful, so qutebrowser is what I'll spend my summer holidays on! \o/ If you wanted to get a t-shirt or stickers and haven't yet, you probably should do so now - also, if you want some stickers and can't afford to donate to the crowdfunding, shoot me a mail and I'll be happy to send you some stickers anyways. Thanks for all the support - I can't wait to get started (which will be June 5th)! :) Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john at lane.uk.net Tue May 30 14:16:11 2017 From: john at lane.uk.net (John Lane) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:16:11 +0100 Subject: [qutebrowser] tab navigation keys Message-ID: <72c78f7e-dfc0-59c4-3375-50f60089cd14@lane.uk.net> Hey Florian, I just wondered why you allocated "K" to move LEFT along the tabs and "J" to move RIGHT ? It feels to me that, J being to the left of K, J should move left and K should move right. Also J is next to H which is the navigation left and K is next to L which is the navigation right. I realise it's personal preference, but was just curious why you chose to do it the way you did...? Also, any reason why you never implemented ':x' as well as ':wq' which is, I believe, standard vi ? I've sorted these things myself in my own config so no issues - I'm just curious. Especially the J and K usage because they feel so backwards to me. Cheers, John From felix.vanderjeugt at gmail.com Tue May 30 14:13:57 2017 From: felix.vanderjeugt at gmail.com (Felix Van der Jeugt) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:13:57 +0200 Subject: [qutebrowser] tab navigation keys In-Reply-To: <72c78f7e-dfc0-59c4-3375-50f60089cd14@lane.uk.net> References: <72c78f7e-dfc0-59c4-3375-50f60089cd14@lane.uk.net> Message-ID: <149614643713.1950.4617181353246958241@abysm> Hi John, Quoting John Lane (2017-05-30 14:16:11) > I just wondered why you allocated "K" to move LEFT along the tabs and > "J" to move RIGHT ? I might not be Florian, but I'm fairly sure I know why "j" is right and "k" is left. After all, in vi, "j" is down and "k" is up. So it sort of makes sense that "j" would go deeper in the tabs (and increase the tab number instead of the line number). Quoting John Lane (2017-05-30 14:16:11) > Also, any reason why you never implemented ':x' as well as ':wq' which > is, I believe, standard vi ? This, I'm not sure of. Sincerely, Felix -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: signature URL: From me at the-compiler.org Tue May 30 14:20:08 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:20:08 +0200 Subject: [qutebrowser] tab navigation keys In-Reply-To: <72c78f7e-dfc0-59c4-3375-50f60089cd14@lane.uk.net> References: <72c78f7e-dfc0-59c4-3375-50f60089cd14@lane.uk.net> Message-ID: <20170530122007.xczafsgpztme3hwm@hooch.localdomain> Hi, On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 01:16:11PM +0100, John Lane wrote: > I just wondered why you allocated "K" to move LEFT along the tabs and > "J" to move RIGHT ? Because J is the vim-keybinding to go down, and it makes a lot of sense to map "down" to "next"/"right". Also, with vertical tabs (:set tabs position left) it'd be confusing if J/down would go up. > I realise it's personal preference, but was just curious why you chose > to do it the way you did...? Not entirely. It's what dwb does, and qutebrowser's keybindings are designed to be compatible with dwb's, because it originally was a replacement for many stranded dwb users (such as myself). > Also, any reason why you never implemented ':x' as well as ':wq' which > is, I believe, standard vi ? :wq is aliased, :x isn't. Generally because qutebrowser is not vi, and with some things it just doesn't make sense to try to shoehorn them into qutebrowser. Even :wq is questionable - what do you expect "write" to do in a browser? Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john at lane.uk.net Tue May 30 15:51:35 2017 From: john at lane.uk.net (John Lane) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:51:35 +0100 Subject: [qutebrowser] tab navigation keys In-Reply-To: <20170530122007.xczafsgpztme3hwm@hooch.localdomain> References: <72c78f7e-dfc0-59c4-3375-50f60089cd14@lane.uk.net> <20170530122007.xczafsgpztme3hwm@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: <7fd65f73-5404-5a99-34ea-377dcdf05fbc@lane.uk.net> On 30/05/17 13:20, Florian Bruhin wrote: > > Because J is the vim-keybinding to go down, and it makes a lot of sense > to map "down" to "next"/"right". > > Also, with vertical tabs (:set tabs position left) it'd be confusing if > J/down would go up. > I think that is a good point. I hadn't tried moving the tabs to the left. Have just done so although I am worried it will lead to bad habits - just how many tabs will fit down there!!! :) > > Not entirely. It's what dwb does, and qutebrowser's keybindings are > designed to be compatible with dwb's, because it originally was a > replacement for many stranded dwb users (such as myself). > that too is a fair enough, and probably the primary reason! >> Also, any reason why you never implemented ':x' as well as ':wq' which >> is, I believe, standard vi ? > > :wq is aliased, :x isn't. Generally because qutebrowser is not vi, and > with some things it just doesn't make sense to try to shoehorn them into > qutebrowser. Even :wq is questionable - what do you expect "write" to do > in a browser? > My assumption was that :wq exited saving session/settings whereas :q didn't (haven't checked this though). And I have years' muscle-memory calling for :x over :wq. I have aliased this myself in qutebrowser.conf. Cheers for the response. John