I find myself setting up a container that will be deployed as part of an IoT solution. It will need to deal with captive portal interfaces as the purpose of the container is to provide uplink connectivity. It would be nice if it could be lynx/elinks/etc, but I doubt that will work well enough. Running something via ssh-forwarded-X11 would be acceptable. Ideally the browser is so limited in functionality that it seldom needs upgrades, and also ideally it's a single (if big) binary without any LD_PATH dependancies. And available for armhf :-) I will not be surprised if there is nothing that satisfies my needs and is still capable of dealing with portals. So it occurs to me that maybe a document that establishes a reasonable subset of capabilities would be a good thing to have. Then at least, both portal makers and captive portal browser providers could have something to work towards. Maybe this is really W3C work? -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature