> Example from WinCE5: There's a limit of 32MB per process, so every byte is
> important.
My case is similar (but 32 MB per device :)
--
Regards,
Konstantin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listi
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:
> Obviously many "devices" have already shipped with "full" copies of
> WebKit. If you have a very low-memory/low-power device (more than a
> cell phone or a TV or a car or something that would run Qt -- all of
> these have numerous shipping exa
I agree - disabling features per platform is a bad precedence to set for
webkit.
Just my 2 cents.
-Jake
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Patrick Gansterer wrote:
>
> Eric Seidel:
>
> > The more you turn off, the less the binary you create is "WebKit". It
> > tells servers its "WebKit" via its
Eric Seidel:
> The more you turn off, the less the binary you create is "WebKit". It
> tells servers its "WebKit" via its useragent, but then it doesn't have
> the features that pages have come to expect from WebKit -- this is bad
> for WebKit and bad for your users.
Feature detection by user a
Konstantin:
The more you turn off, the less the binary you create is "WebKit". It
tells servers its "WebKit" via its useragent, but then it doesn't have
the features that pages have come to expect from WebKit -- this is bad
for WebKit and bad for your users.
A better course of action is to study
On Jan 4, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 03.01.2011, 23:58, "Darin Adler" :
>> On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to get WebKit running on device with very limited resources.
>>> Basically, it would be quite enough if resulting "browser" just p
03.01.2011, 23:58, "Darin Adler" :
> On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> I'd like to get WebKit running on device with very limited resources.
>> Basically, it would be quite enough if resulting "browser" just properly
>> displayed HTML 4 + CSS 2.1, and it would be high
On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> I'd like to get WebKit running on device with very limited resources.
> Basically, it would be quite enough if resulting "browser" just properly
> displayed HTML 4 + CSS 2.1, and it would be highly desired to reduce size of
> binaries and
> Here are my thoughts on this subject matter:
>
> 1) It's bad for the WebKit project to have too many feature flags. All
> those ifdefs make the code both harder to read and harder to test. I think we
> already have too many and would like to reduce the number.
>
> 2) It’s bad for the w
On Dec 30, 2010, at 2:37 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> What is the right way to handle dependencies between features set in time of
> configuration?
>
> For example, I'd like to shrink some functionality ("feature B") in embedded
> browser, and therefore add option --[no]-B flag to build-webk
Hi all,
What is the right way to handle dependencies between features set in time of
configuration?
For example, I'd like to shrink some functionality ("feature B") in embedded
browser, and therefore add
option --[no]-B flag to build-webkit, but it will break existing "feature A" if
it is disa
11 matches
Mail list logo
