On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM, PaulTopping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was my hope that others would read this and > think of problems it might solve. SVG support could be done this way, > as I suggested. In general, I think it leads to a more modular > approach to browser architecture. It would also provide more scope for > 3rd party enhancement. As many have noted, the "build a platform and > they will come" philosophy has a lot of power. It also has a lot of cost. Too much genericism and extensibility where it isn't truly necessary causes noticeable performance, footprint, and maintenance costs. To blindly support such a plan would be naive, but that doesn't mean no one would ever want it if the tradeoffs made since. My company does not have the resources to make changes to the > browsers. It's hard to make good design choices about this kind of thing in the abstract, and performance is paramount in layout engines, so a working prototype implementation is going to be one of the only ways to move forward with determining whether this is actually something people would want. If you don't have the ability to construct this, I doubt the issue will go anywhere. More importantly, the low-level support needed to make it > happen requires a committment on the part of the insiders within the > browser development community. My original posting was intended to > garner that committment, or at least see it discussed. I think people are typically willing to discuss things, but need to have concrete information to go on. PK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
