discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))


From: Yen-Ju Chen
Subject: Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:00 -0700

On 3/19/07, Riccardo <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden> 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
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]