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. Thanks, Botond _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform