There has been a lot of discussion as of late about getting a well-
integrated web browser/web view working in GNUstep. That's been a
desire of mine for the past few years, and, even with the
availability of Apple's WebKit and the release of GCC 4.1 with
support for Objective-C++, we still d
That should have been dated 2007.02.28 ;)
J.
On Mar 1, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Jesse Ross wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion as of late about getting a well-
integrated web browser/web view working in GNUstep. That's been a
desire of mine for the past few years, and, even with the
availa
On 3/2/07, Jesse Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
- The port should use the latest code (as of 2006.02.28) from the
WebKit Subversion repository as located at http://webkit.org/
The WebKit team is moving away from Objective-C to C++ for *cough*
"making the code more portable."
A while b
On 3/2/07, Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keep in mind that the whole SVN checkout is roughly about 550MB of
code... WebKit uses Xcode and/or Bakefiles. So you'll need to make
yourself familiar with these and either need to figure out how they
work with GNUstep or need to write each
On 3/2/07, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/2/07, Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep in mind that the whole SVN checkout is roughly about 550MB of
> code... WebKit uses Xcode and/or Bakefiles. So you'll need to make
[...]
OMG! no way! Thats BIG!
I think i would rat
On 2007-03-02 09:39:50 +0100 Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 3/2/07, Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Keep in mind that the whole SVN checkout is roughly about 550MB of
>>> code... WebKit uses Xcode and/or Bakef
On 3/2/07, Camille Bourgoin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my opinion, a web framewok is absolutely essential. What is the
Yes.
best solution ? Starting a Framework from scratch ? Using a preexistent
lightweight engine ?
I honestly do not know what the best solution would be. However,
starti
Hi Folks,
Am 02.03.2007 um 09:24 schrieb Chris B. Vetter:
A while back I was working on porting WebKit to GNUstep but got stuck
with JavaScriptCore's bindings, since these rely heavily on
CoreFoundation.
Since I couldn't get the current CoreFoundation working, I tried
CF-Lite, which didn't wor
On 3/2/07, David Wetzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe spidermonkey is a good thing? SpiderMonkey is the code-name for
the Mozilla's C implementation of JavaScript.
http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/
Since WebCore and WebKit draw upon header files of JavaScriptCore, you
will then have to
Camille Bourgoin wrote:
> On 2007-03-02 09:39:50 +0100 Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 3/2/07, Rogelio Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/2/07, Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Keep in mind that the whole SVN checkout is roughly abo
On 3/2/07, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I'm not a programmer (I'm a philosopher and I'm a poor beginner in
> sh/lisp/C/objective-c who learn a lot but can't doing nothing :(
> ), then I don't realize correctly the amount of work of porting a
> Framework like WebKit...
Chris B. Vetter wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Camille Bourgoin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, a web framewok is absolutely essential. What is the
>
> Yes.
>
>> best solution ? Starting a Framework from scratch ? Using a preexistent
>> lightweight engine ?
>
> I honestly do not know what the bes
On Mar 2, 2007, at 10:44, David Wetzel wrote:
Maybe spidermonkey is a good thing? SpiderMonkey is the code-name
for the Mozilla's C implementation of JavaScript.
http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/
SpiderMonkey is a good thing, but two things must be kept in mind:
a) as already written b
On 2 Mar 2007, at 08:34, Rogelio Serrano wrote:
On 3/2/07, Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keep in mind that the whole SVN checkout is roughly about 550MB of
code... WebKit uses Xcode and/or Bakefiles. So you'll need to make
yourself familiar with these and either need to figure out
Hi,
> OMG! no way! Thats BIG!
> I think i would rather start playing with expat and focus on xhtml and
> other xml stuff.
There is also WebKitQt which is a port of WebKit to Qt. It can be built with
WebKit/WebKitTools/Scripts/build-webkit and there is QtLauncher, a simple
example browser. There
On 3/2/07, Michael Thaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is also WebKitQt which is a port of WebKit to Qt. It can be built with
WebKit/WebKitTools/Scripts/build-webkit and there is QtLauncher, a simple
example browser. There is no real full-featured browser using WebKitQt yet, but
QtLaunche
On 2007-03-02 11:29:08 +0100 Michael Thaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I have never even looked at the source code of WebKit, but if it is
possible
to port it to Qt, shouldn't it also be possible to port it to
gnustep? I know
WebKit is a fork of khtml, the KDE rendering engine, but as far as I
On 3/2/07, Chris Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-03-02 11:29:08 +0100 Michael Thaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I have never even looked at the source code of WebKit, but if it is
> possible
> to port it to Qt, shouldn't it also be possible to port it to
> gnustep? I know
> WebKit is
Jesse has proposed a bounty of $500 for the WebKit port to GNUstep and
getting the patches back into the webkit.org svn tree.
I'd find this very useful, and it'd be nice to finally get a fully-GNUstep
desktop environment, let alone the opportunities for a richer application
environment.
It's goin
I'm in favour of having some sensible sunset clause on the bounty,
but I'll leave that to Jesse to think about.
I realize that it's going to be a lot of work, but, given Peter's
suggestion, let's have the bounty active until September 1st, 2007,
giving prospective bounty recipients 6 months
Am 02.03.2007 um 17:32 schrieb Chris Vetter:
- WebCore
[...] there already engines for [...] Cairo
Isn't this everything one needs? If NSOpenGLView is usable without an
Obj-C based OpenGL implementation, NSWebView doesn't require an Obj-C
implementation either, right?
En passant, this w
This discussion pops up once in a while, the fact that we want a GNUstep
web browser. From a non-programmer point of view, I would like to make
the following comments:
Every time this discussion pops up people are looking for short cuts.
Basing coding on existing projects, which from an open s
On 2007-03-02 11:49:14 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This discussion pops up once in a while, the fact that we want a
GNUstep web
browser. From a non-programmer point of view, I would like to make
the
following comments:
Every time this discussion pops up people are looking
It is worth mentioning that OmniWeb started life as a Web Browser on
NeXT that was well regarded, and used it's own internal OBjective C
HTML rendering engine. With version 4.5 on the Mac, they abandonded
their own HTML code and adopted WebKit..
/* Satori & Associates, Inc.
> are a lot of web browsers around and just a couple of engines. So we
> could steal ideas and code snippets and prove that Objective-C and
> GNUstep are a better base for an engine then anything else around.
> >> The beauty of Objective-C is it's expandability. So I guess the best
> >> way would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> are a lot of web browsers around and just a couple of engines. So we
>> could steal ideas and code snippets and prove that Objective-C and
>> GNUstep are a better base for an engine then anything else around.
>>
>
>
The beauty of Objective-C is it's expandab
>
> Can we make it handle xml and xslt?
Yes - we can do everything we can imagine.
As long as there are volunteers...
___
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Hi,
> I think it is worth to mention SimpleWebKit here - a rough
> implementation of
> WebView, WebFrame, WebFrameView, WebDataSource etc. - completely
> written
> in Objective-C without any C++. The reason is that it must cross-
> compile
> on gcc 2.95.3 for some ARM processors.
>
> Here is the s
My thoughts EXACTLY!
-Thom
On 3/3/07, Michael Thaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> I think it is worth to mention SimpleWebKit here - a rough
> implementation of
> WebView, WebFrame, WebFrameView, WebDataSource etc. - completely
> written
> in Objective-C without any C++. The reason is tha
egory Casamento
- Original Message
From: Thom Cherryhomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael Thaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2007 3:13:02 PM
Subject: Re: GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)
My thoughts EXACTLY!
-Thom
On 3/3
Hi,
On Friday, March 2, 2007, at 09:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is worth to mention SimpleWebKit here - a rough
implementation of
WebView, WebFrame, WebFrameView, WebDataSource etc. - completely
written
in Objective-C without any C++. The reason is that it must cross-
compile
on
*shakes-head*
*walks-away*
On 3/3/07, Riccardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Friday, March 2, 2007, at 09:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it is worth to mention SimpleWebKit here - a rough
> implementation of
> WebView, WebFrame, WebFrameView, WebDataSource etc. - completely
>
Michael Thaler wrote:
> What makes writing HTML parsers/rendering engines really difficult is not
> parsing correct HTML and showing it. The problem is parsing/showing incorrect
> HTML. Apple spends a lot of resources testing WebKit with a lot of buggy web
> pages and make them show reasonably w
Hi
> I completely agree, It would be foolish not to leverage all of the work
> by the KHTML and WebKit teams. GNUstep doesn't need to maintain it's own
> HTML rendering engine. It's too big and time consuming and we have more
> important things to focus on.
And on that note, you'll need some ki
Rogelio,
> I dont think this is enough reason to invent a new ugly language. So we
> can render broken pages properly. For apple maybe.
Invent a new ugly language??? Heh. No one is doing anything of the sort.
ObjC++ has been around for a while.
> Duplication cannot be avoided. Would you ra
On 3/4/07, Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rogelio,
> I dont think this is enough reason to invent a new ugly language. So we
> can render broken pages properly. For apple maybe.
Invent a new ugly language??? Heh. No one is doing anything of the sort.
ObjC++ has been aro
On 4 Mar 2007, at 06:09, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Hi
I completely agree, It would be foolish not to leverage all of the
work
by the KHTML and WebKit teams. GNUstep doesn't need to maintain
it's own
HTML rendering engine. It's too big and time consuming and we
have more
important t
On 3 Mar 2007, at 22:58, Riccardo wrote:
Hi,
On Friday, March 2, 2007, at 09:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is worth to mention SimpleWebKit here - a rough
implementation of
WebView, WebFrame, WebFrameView, WebDataSource etc. - completely
written
in Objective-C without any C++. T
On 4 Mrz., 09:08, Richard Frith-Macdonald
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2007, at 22:58, Riccardo wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > On Friday, March 2, 2007, at 09:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I think it is worth to mention SimpleWebKit here - a rough
> >> implementation of
> >> WebView,
> we still have uses for an xhtml only application right?
Of course, but if we're going to write a browser or an html viewer, we may as
well write one that will work in the general case. I'm not discouraging anyone
from writing their own. If you want to, then that's up to you. All I am
sayin
Gregory John Casamento wrote:
>> we still have uses for an xhtml only application right?
>>
>
> Of course, but if we're going to write a browser or an html viewer, we may as
> well write one that will work in the general case. I'm not discouraging
> anyone from writing their own. If you wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4 Mar 2007, at 14:08, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. wrote:
Gregory John Casamento wrote:
we still have uses for an xhtml only application right?
Of course, but if we're going to write a browser or an html
viewer, we may as well write one that wil
On 3/4/07, Richard Frith-Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well its a mar of getting a usable xhtml application within certain
>> constraints. I would like to ttehave it as soon as possible. How
>> long would
> it take to port webkit?
From what's been said already in this thread, it sound
> Well its a matter of getting a usable xhtml application within certain
> constraints. I would like to have it as soon as possible. How long would
> it take to port webkit?
I'm not sure. The tasks are this, as I see it:
1) Write an XHTML rendering engine from scratch or
2) Port WebKit
It seems
On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I already have an FSF assignment for "changes to GNUstep" but I have
no idea if adding a new framework is a change to GNUstep or a new
project... That is something FSF has to decide.
It really a mutual decision between you and the GNUstep
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:12 AM, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Rogelio,
... [elided] ...
If html is so easy to do wrong and so hard to handle then we put a
bullet in the s*'s head and move on.
It's not that easy... it's nice to say that we will make a parser that
will only handle "correc
On 3/5/07, Robert Slover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There, of course, now exists the official TidyLib, which I do not know
a lot about, but it could be a useful tool in getting from the point of
having a renderer that works with correct HTML/XML to one that can
understand the bulk of the incorre
On 4 Mrz., 18:36, Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Well its a matter of getting a usable xhtml application within certain
> > constraints. I would like to have it as soon as possible. How long would
> > it take to port webkit?
>
> I'm not sure. The tasks are this, as I see it:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 4 Mrz., 18:36, Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Well its a matter of getting a usable xhtml application within certain
>>> constraints. I would like to have it as soon as possible. How long would
>>> it take to port webkit?
>>>
>> I'm
> or pass html through html tidy first.
It appears unnecessary to me to go that way because it first parses
HTML into a tree, then fixes some things and writes out HTML just to
parse it again...
I have read through the rules html tidy uses and in most cases the
following rules will have the same
I do want to ask, have any of you actually done any of this sort of
thing before?
It always seems, every time I run a page that's been badly formatted
through Tidy, it's a crap shoot as to whether it will wind up with the
same visual representation that was intended in the first place.
It's just
On 3/5/07, Thom Cherryhomes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do want to ask, have any of you actually done any of this sort of
thing before?
It always seems, every time I run a page that's been badly formatted
through Tidy, it's a crap shoot as to whether it will wind up with the
same visual represe
On 5 Mar 2007 02:53:09 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> or pass html through html tidy first.
It appears unnecessary to me to go that way because it first parses
HTML into a tree, then fixes some things and writes out HTML just to
parse it again...
i thought that was a go
On 4 Mrz., 18:51, Adam Fedor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I already have an FSF assignment for "changes to GNUstep" but I have
> > no idea if adding a new framework is a change to GNUstep or a new
> > project... That is something FSF has to d
for Base to have the CF
API (Apple btw. does it the reversed way). So, this is no
reimplementation...
I think Chris was doing the CoreFoundation stuff anyway ... nothing
to do with the current 'WebKit Bounty' discussion directly but an
interesting point to raise (in the con
To take that a step further ... even if some people are really
hostile to an idea on the discussion list, that doesn't usually
reflect the attitude of the project as a whole or that of the core
developers, and it's highly likely that other people would welcome
contributions that a small min
Am 03.03.2007 um 21:25 schrieb Gregory John Casamento:
Micheal,
I completely agree, It would be foolish not to leverage all of the
work by the KHTML and WebKit teams. GNUstep doesn't need to
maintain it's own HTML rendering engine. It's too big and time
consuming and we have more impor
Am 04.03.2007 um 08:12 schrieb Gregory John Casamento:
Rogelio,
I dont think this is enough reason to invent a new ugly language.
So we
can render broken pages properly. For apple maybe.
Invent a new ugly language??? Heh. No one is doing anything of
the sort. ObjC++ has been around
On 3/4/07, Richard Frith-Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
I think Chris was doing the CoreFoundation stuff anyway ... nothing
to do with the current 'WebKit Bounty' discussion directly but an
interesting point to raise (in the context of porting webkit) that a
CoreFou
On 6 Mar 2007, at 08:52, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
[CF-Lite]
The problem is with Apple's APSL. I don't really know how it relates
to LGPL and I don't know how Apple Legal would react if a
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Cheers,
Graham.
___
Di
Although threre has been a lot of scepticism if the approach of
reimplementing the WebKit API in pure Objective-C is reasonable and a
lot of discussion where to start at all, I have rendered the first
pages as you can see here:
http://www.quantum-step.com/images/web.png
On the left side is the NS
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 8:40:15 AM
Subject: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))
Although threre has been a lot of scepticism if the approach of
reimplementing the WebKit API in pure Objective-C is reasonable and a
l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
Subject: Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))
There hasn't been skepticism, just the idea that if we do it from scratch we
will be duplicating the efforts of the KHTML and Apple teams working on W
Nicola,
there is no reason why you can't do that with SimpleWebKit (so it is
not a "rather").
I estimate that implementing NSAttributedString -initWithHTML: around
the WebKit API is just 20-30 LOC.
Nikolaus
Am 06.03.2007 um 16:04 schrieb Nicola Pero:
Personally, I would rather see a basi
Am 06.03.2007 um 15:54 schrieb Gregory John Casamento:
There hasn't been skepticism, just the idea that if we do it from
scratch we will be duplicating the efforts of the KHTML and Apple
teams working on WebKit.
I believe that both approaches have merit. If we can get something
working
On 3/6/07, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicola,
there is no reason why you can't do that with SimpleWebKit (so it is
not a "rather").
I estimate that implementing NSAttributedString -initWithHTML: around
the WebKit API is just 20-30 LOC.
Nikolaus
Am 06.03.2007 um 16:04 s
>
> I agree with GJC that it is a big duplicate to have our own web browser.
Ok, that brings up a different aspect - maintaining an own web browser
is a duplicate of work. And that is a completey different topic/
decision.
1. SimpleWebKit as part of mySTEP is here and shows that it works.
2. An
On 6 Mar 2007, at 18:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with GJC that it is a big duplicate to have our own web
browser.
Ok, that brings up a different aspect - maintaining an own web browser
is a duplicate of work. And that is a completey different topic/
decision.
1. SimpleWebKit as
> As for the xhtml text converter bundle Nicola suggests for use by the
> gui library ... the obvious thing IMO would be to write it to use
> SimpleWebKit, and perhaps provide an alternative bundle using WebKit
> later.
The wrapper can indeed be made 100% interchangeable since both use the
W
On 6 Mar 2007 12:05:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the xhtml text converter bundle Nicola suggests for use by the
> gui library ... the obvious thing IMO would be to write it to use
> SimpleWebKit, and perhaps provide an alternative bundle using WebKit
> later.
T
[resend]
Hello
The current progress in SimpleWebKit is very gratifying, I did a test
build of the code from a few days ago and the code compiled on
GNUstep (with only one slight change to an #ifdef), and a simple
palette seemed quite buildable (although in that version of the code
there was
Am 07.03.2007 um 01:42 schrieb Peter Cooper:
Hello
The current progress in SimpleWebKit is very gratifying, I did a
test build of the code from a few days ago and the code compiled
on GNUstep (with only one slight change to an #ifdef), and a simple
palette seemed quite buildable (althou
Hi
> Great! Maybe, you can share the GNUmakefile?
Here's one that compiles and installs SimpleWebKit as a library. A
framework is just as easy. I've also attached a small diff -c to one of
the files.
[snipped stuff about web browser being a bit out of scope]
> Well, WebKit is more a library - a
> I don't really see what the problem is with having both SimpleWebKit
> and a port of WebKit ... then developers can choose.
>
> As for the xhtml text converter bundle Nicola suggests for use by the
> gui library ... the obvious thing IMO would be to write it to use
> SimpleWebKit, and perha
ler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Discuss GNUstep , Riccardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))
Hi
> Great! Maybe, you can share the GNUmakefile?
Here's one that compiles and installs SimpleWebKit as a library. A
framework is jus
Ehi, great stuff! :-)
Just a small comment: your GNUmakefile contains the line
GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DIR = $(GNUSTEP_USER_ROOT)
Ooops (should have cleaned it up before sending it :-)
PS: If you really want to specify the installation domain, you can add
GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN = USER
be
Peter,
Am 07.03.2007 um 14:55 schrieb Peter Cooper:
Basically the approach is to parse HTML into a DOM tree (DOMHTML.h) -
exactly as KHTML/WebKit does. Then, rendering is done top down from
the WebHTMLView which has a single child, an NSTextView and the root
of the DOM tree. The NSTextView fina
Hi there,
I feel compelled to mention the incredibly large amount of work that
will be required to bring SimpleWebKit up to a reasonable standard of
web compatibility. HTML, XHTML, and CSS are not simple specifications.
Supporting them to a sufficient degree to have a usable web browser is
qu
On 19 Mrz., 01:07, Mark Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I feel compelled to mention the incredibly large amount of work that
> will be required to bring SimpleWebKit up to a reasonable standard of
originally I wasn't either.
But doing it has shown that it is not at all that compli
On 19 Mar 2007 01:59:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
I myself now start to wonder why WebKit was ever based on Objective-C++
[...]
The fact that WebKit is based on KHTML may have had to do with that decision.
--
Chris
_
On 3/19/07, Chris B. Vetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 01:59:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I myself now start to wonder why WebKit was ever based on Objective-C++
[...]
The fact that WebKit is based on KHTML may have had to do with that decision.
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there,
A common misunderstanding is that the only complex part in creating a
web
browser is supporting "broken" web p
On 3/19/07, Riccardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there,
> A common misunderstanding is that the only complex part in crea
Hi there,
I'm not interested in getting into a debate about which direction
GNUstep should take for developing a web rendering engine. As a
complete outsider to the community anything I say has little influence,
and I have no place in trying to exert any. I am merely trying to
share some of
On 3/20/07, Mark Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there,
I'm not interested in getting into a debate about which direction
GNUstep should take for developing a web rendering engine. As a
complete outsider to the community anything I say has little influence,
and I have no place in trying to e
On 2007-03-18 20:07:17 -0400 Mark Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel compelled to mention the incredibly large amount of work that will be
> required to bring SimpleWebKit up to a reasonable standard of web
> compatibility. HTML, XHTML, and CSS are not simple specifications. Supporting
>
On 3/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-03-18 20:07:17 -0400 Mark Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel compelled to mention the incredibly large amount of work that will be
> required to bring SimpleWebKit up to a reasonable standard of web
> compatibility. HTML, XHT
> Not only so, but there's the fact that a lot of websites are tested in one,
> MAYBE two browsers. If you're not bug-for-bug compatible with Gecko, IE, or
> WebKit, you're wasting your time. Period. Using an existing engine is a
> force multiplier. Not using an existing
engine is insanity,
On 03/23/07, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
And: where would Linux or GNUstep or Gecko or IE or WebKit be now if
they had followed your recommendations? We would still all use BSD and
Netscape 1.0. Period.
Gecko, IE, and WebKit all have commercial backing. KHTML, prior to
Appl
I haven't chimed in this conversation so far just because I really don't
know anything. But what I would like to think is that the goals of
SimpleWebKit are not the same as that of WebKit. Since it's announcement of
this list, I got the impression that SimpleWebKit was to serve as a WebKit
for b
On Mar 23, 2007, at 15:31, Mark Rowe wrote:
Gecko, IE, and WebKit all have commercial backing. KHTML, prior to
Apple's involvement, had a very insubstantial market share and
suffered from one of the problems I alluded to earlier: great
standards support, but poor real-world compatibility.
On 3/23/07, Helge Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 23, 2007, at 15:31, Mark Rowe wrote:
The only thing I'm a bit concerned about is how the two
implementations would live side by side if SimpleWebKit directly
implements WebKit classes instead of using a separate class hierarchy
which is
On Mar 23, 2007, at 17:57, Nicolas Roard wrote:
But providing a browser implementing standard (X)HTML ? it's
not that hard imho.
Well, its probably not hard from a functional point of view. But
getting it sufficiently fast (especially CSS) might be not as trivial.
But thats just pure guesswo
On 23 Mrz., 16:40, Helge Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suppose nobody questions that, its just that the goals are
> different. Apparently Nikolaus just wants to build a browser with
> great standards support (maybe thats why its named *Simple* WebKit?).
Exactly - we just want impleme
On 3/24/07, Helge Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 23, 2007, at 17:57, Nicolas Roard wrote:
> But providing a browser implementing standard (X)HTML ? it's
> not that hard imho.
Well, its probably not hard from a functional point of view. But
getting it sufficiently fast (especially CSS) mi
<>
It wasn't intended to be. I just felt the need to amplify what Mark had said
about the task of web compatibility and the massive task that building a
resilient rendering engine is. It wasn't directed at you or your efforts,
which are perfectly fine. (I was tired when I wrote the email and
Hello Nicolas, hello list,
* Nicolas Roard wrote on Mär/23/2007:
I think it might be very useful for documentation or things like RSS posts at
the very least!
Finally that posting tickled my memory and reminded me of something that Nick Bradbury once wrote in his blog. I
looked it up and her
> >> Well, even if just a small JavaScript ObjC interpreter comes out of
> >> this, it would be a very cool and useful thing! :-)
> > Speaking of that... aren't you supposed to release that shiny
> > WebScript implementation ? ;-)
>
> Hehe, I'm trying to find the time to grab the sources and send i
Heym
On 2007-03-24 10:20:33 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hehe, I'm trying to find the time to grab the sources and send it to
you.
As mentioned its "somewhat working", but quite incomplete. Possibly
you
manage to bring it into shape? ;-)
I would be happy to upload
On Mar 23, 2007, at 17:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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,
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
