[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))
From: |
address@hidden |
Subject: |
Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)) |
Date: |
25 Mar 2007 03:49:24 -0700 |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On 25 Mrz., 12:18, Helge Hess <helge.h...@opengroupware.org> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2007, at 17:50, h...@computer.org wrote:
>
> > There is no problem to expect with that. Both implement the documented
> > WebView and WebFrame API in two different frameworks. You can link to
> > either one in your applications (there is IMHO no reason to have both
> > in a single application).
>
> Well, I disagree with that and its exactly what I'm concerned about.
> Since the API is *not* the same (the implemented HTML is obviously
> part of the API in this case!), the code should be able to select
I would not say that it is API. It is different capabilities - some of
them are mandatory and others optional. Would you also see NSImage's
set of supported formats as part of the API?
> which implementation it needs.
Hm. Since everybody appears to agree that full WebKit is more powerful
and robust and SimpleWebKit can only be a subset, you should in that
case simply use the ported WebKit and not SimpleWebKit.
I have no idea how to really solve that otherwise - besides renaming
all classes to avoid name conflicts. But that hurts those >80%
applications which just need either one.
> And since an application can be composed from different frameworks
> (say an RSS framework and a browser framework), its also extremely
> useful to have both in one application.
Yes. But neither WebKit nor SimpleWebKit supports RSS (directly). So,
you can link either one with the RSS framework. But both have a
compatible plugin architecture for adding new MIME content types since
it is part of WebView.
> In fact I expect that a lot of frameworks and apps will use HTML
> plugins instead of native GUI elements over time (sometime
> SimpleWebKit might be perfect for). Just check NewsFire or Adium.
There are IMHO exactly two sets of interfaces which applications
should use to remain portable:
Web* classes and NSAttributedString's -initWithHTML:
> If you only want to build two versions of a web browser, it doesn't
> matter. But if you want to integrate an HTML engine in an app and use
> it as a core component, it matters a lot.
I think -[NSAttributedString initWithHTML:] and -[WebView
stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString:] should be the standard means
of integrating the HTML engine from a software architectural point of
view with the KISS-principle in mind. You would have to do it that way
as well if you port full WebKit or run on Cocoa. Or do you think of a
different task?
Nikolaus
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), (continued)
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), Andreas Wagner, 2007/03/23
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), Helge Hess, 2007/03/25
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), Andreas Wagner, 2007/03/25
- Message not available
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), address@hidden, 2007/03/24
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), Riccardo, 2007/03/25
- Message not available
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), address@hidden, 2007/03/23
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), Helge Hess, 2007/03/25
- Message not available
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)),
address@hidden <=
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), Helge Hess, 2007/03/25
- Message not available
- Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), address@hidden, 2007/03/26
Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)), jhclouse, 2007/03/23