On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Gilbert <jgilb...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> It feels like the committee is burnt out on trying to solve the
> general library problem, but contemplating something massively complex
> like this instead doesn't follow, and is an answer to the wrong
> question.
> Make it easier to integrate libraries and we wouldn't see kludge
> proposals like this.

Could you elaborate on the "complexity" and "kludge" aspects?

One of the main complaints about the 2D graphics proposal was that it
was trying to create a new spec in a space where there are existing
mature specs, and that the committee as a group doesn't necessarily
have the depth of domain expertise in graphics necessary to specify a
library like this. This web_view proposal attempts to address that
concern by leveraging existing graphics and other specs from web
standards. So, in a sense, the committee is trying to avoid dealing
with complexity / reuse the work that others have done to tackle the
complexity inherent in the problem space.

If you're referring to the embedding mechanism / API itself being
complex, it would be useful to elaborate on why. The API surface in
the proposed library seems to be quite small.

It's also worth noting that there is prior art in this space in the
form of e.g. the QtWebView and wxWebView APIs, which I believe are
fairly popular in cross-platform C++ applications, suggesting a demand
for this sort of library.

Note that I'm not necessarily advocating for this proposal; I'm just
trying to understand the concerns / feedback better so that I can
communicate them to the proposal authors effectively. If you would
prefer to communicate the concerns to the authors directly, please
feel free to do so.

dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to