(just resending to list, i just pressed reply before)
Well, just some comments on the tree itself:
- The Netscape 6/7 & Mozilla branches probably should be combined in
some matter. They are all the same browser internally, just different
versions. (Netscape 6 is M18(Milestone 18, before 1.0) and Netscape 7
is very similar to 1.0.1) All differences should be so minor as just to
check to see if a new feature is supported or not. A possible overall
name for this category should be Gecko, since that is the rendering
engine. There are also some other browsers that use Gecko, but I'm not
sure if they use the same Javascript dom too.
- I also doubt, but could wrong, that there would be a need for a
separate PC(Should be called Windows, since Linux runs on PCs), Mac, and
Linux branch.
My ideas might not be good for optimization, since i haven't studied the
browsers extensively, but should work for compatibility.
Dan Willemsen
On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 06:02, Joy Ride wrote:
Hello,
There has been some discussion about how browser support for DynAPI3
should
be branched. We would use the "sum of largest common" -method for
that.
Based on our tests and knowledge base branching would look like this
(some
of you have allready suggested similar tree to ours):
Common
|
|__DOM
| |
| |__MSIE5/6
| | |
| | |__MAC
| | |
| | |__PC
| |
| |__NS6/7
| | |
| | |__PC
| | |
| | |__Linux/MAC***
| |
| |__Opera 7*/****
| |
| |__Mozilla*/****
|
|__NS4
|
|__MSIE4
|
|__Opera5/6
|
|__PocketPC MSIE 2002**
Some explanations
* It maybe possible to combine this branch with NS6/7 branch
** Needs more consideration and documentation before it can be
decided if
it's possible to support Pocket PC MSIE, basically Pocket PC MSIE
2002 is
MSIE5 without some features
*** There maybe need to separate MAC and Linux branches, they are
prety
close to each other, but there may be some differences
**** At this point we do not have information if these browsers need
separate platform branches to be fully supported.
By branching I do not mean that everything should be coded for each
branch.
Just the parts, which do need either optimization or extran
compability. In
our opinion this way we could create the maximun set of features for
each
browser and optimize the performance for each browser enough.
What do you think about this approach?
- Juho Risku
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
