On 3/19/07, Riccardo <multix ngi.it> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since I have seen that you commented on my blog and
that your comment
> generated other comments...
>
> On 2007-03-19 01:07:17 +0100 Mark Rowe <bdashwebkit.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
>
> > A common misunderstanding is that the only complex
part in creating a
> > web
> > browser is supporting "broken" web
pages. It is true that this can
> > complicate matters, but the fact that no major web
browsers have
> > *complete*
> > support for the majority of web standards should
give some idea as to
> > how
> > much work is involved in implementing them.
Internet Explorer and
> > Mozilla
> > have been developed over the last 10 years,
primarily by full-time
> > software
> > engineers.
> I think that nobody underestimates the time needed. But
I think that
> the big time spent developing mozilla is also due by
many different
> goals. I do believe that a compact, clean web engine
can be written
> with much less effort if some conditions are relaxed. I
don't know
> that the goals of Dr. Schaller are, but I myself would
call me
> satisfied if we get an engine with supports most of the
used standards
> in HTML, XHTML and CSS if they are written correctly,
if it renders
> acceptably broken pages and if a usable JavaScript is
there. So if I
> get 90% of gecko functionality with less bloat, less
resources less
> code I'd call myself satisfied.
> If you look at how decently iCab did work (I haven't
checked its
> maintainance status lately), which is the effort of 2
people...
To me, there are two purposes to have a web engine.
One is to be a full browser, and WebKit is the way to go.
The other is a more simple one for email, rss reader or
help viewer.
In that case, both SimpleWebKit and WebKit will do.
Yen-Ju
>
> Although people will say Obj-C++ was needed because of
the usage of
> KHTML, I think that Apple underestimated the task of
getting KHTML to
> work cleanly and if those resources were put in better
use a cleaner
> and better WebKit woul dhave existed. And no need of
ugly languages,
> less crashes, better memory managment. And about speed
- I don't know.
>
> > Please get in touch[2] with us if anyone is
interested in getting
> > involved
> > with porting WebKit to GNUstep. It will almost
certainly be a
> > quicker means
> > of having a fully-featured web browser on GNUstep
than attempting to
> > start
> > from scratch.
>
> I think there is space for both engines - since they
are going to be
> API compatible. Both may exist on both APple and
GNUstep platforms. I
> see them in the short-mid-term as very different beasts
which will
> have differences in performance and ompatibility with
different bugs.
> At the moment I thought that devoting time to help
Nikolaus in the
> port is well invested time (given that there is other
work needed to
> better sync GNUstep and myStep... it is great time),
since porting
> WebKit will be a great task too, will probably need
latest compilers
> and will bind us at Apple.
> What if in the future WebKit will need Obj-C 2.0
features - let us be
> saved. Or it will ocnstantly need some ugly Core*
stuff? Or some other
> decisions whcih might hurt us or which we don't want to
share?
>
> both WebKit and SimpleWebKit have hurdles on the road
and promise
> different results. For now, I see substance in
SimpleWebKit, if
> someone else starts a GNUstep port of WebKit nothing
prevents me to
> help him too.
>
> Nice Work,
> Riccardo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustepgnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustepgnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
|