As discussed previously :) I have come to agree that having SWK is a good lightweight idea, but I'm just not sure that it would be as "simple" if it started to support all a common user expects in a browser. That is, if we added manhours which we don't quite have, and SWK could become usable on, say, top 50 sites of the modern web, it would no longer be lightweight
Would you consider it lightweight once it could run Facebook desktop experience? Or Google Docs? No matter what one may think about particular products, sites like this are what's important for a regular user to consider something a browser.
Ivan Vučica wrote:
> WebKit is a good candidate, just, let's not present it as a
> lightweight project because it's anything but.
that is why I liked SWK approach so much: with the same interfaces, a
lightweight engine. Almost hot-pluggable :)
Alternatives would be to "port" a lightweight engine and there NetSurf
or Dillo oro similar, this was discussed an infinite number of times on
this mailing list, but no real effort in the engine was actually done.
We had several WebKit attepts (but as said, not lightweight) including
Berkelium and CEF stuff (quick wrap). But the only light approach
attempted is/was SWK. The rest has always been a lot of talk, while we
need cooding power.