Oh, and similar comment applies to Dillo. I know little of NetSurf. On Wed, Aug 2, 2017, 19:50 Ivan Vučica <[email protected]> wrote:
> As discussed previously :) I have come to agree that having SWK is a good > lightweight idea, but I'm just not sure that it would be as "simple" if it > started to support all a common user expects in a browser. That is, if we > added manhours which we don't quite have, and SWK could become usable on, > say, top 50 sites of the modern web, it would no longer be lightweight > > Would you consider it lightweight once it could run Facebook desktop > experience? Or Google Docs? No matter what one may think about particular > products, sites like this are what's important for a regular user to > consider something a browser. > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017, 19:07 Riccardo Mottola <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Ivan Vučica wrote: >> > WebKit is a good candidate, just, let's not present it as a >> > lightweight project because it's anything but. >> >> that is why I liked SWK approach so much: with the same interfaces, a >> lightweight engine. Almost hot-pluggable :) >> >> Alternatives would be to "port" a lightweight engine and there NetSurf >> or Dillo oro similar, this was discussed an infinite number of times on >> this mailing list, but no real effort in the engine was actually done. >> We had several WebKit attepts (but as said, not lightweight) including >> Berkelium and CEF stuff (quick wrap). But the only light approach >> attempted is/was SWK. The rest has always been a lot of talk, while we >> need cooding power. >> >> Riccardo >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
