Hi, Von: "Raymond C. Rodgers" <sinful622@xxxxxxxxx> > Ryan Leavengood wrote: > > I will admit I was kind of wanting to write my own browser anyhow, so > > if you have other plans that is fine. As I said, options are always > > good. Actually, if "options" means that we have two "so-so" options instead of one better option if the two developers could become a team instead of working along ... I'm almost sure of what I'd like better. > There's no reason that Themis couldn't support a custom one as well as > web kit or any other rendering engine. One of the primary goals of the > project was to make a modular browser, so that it would be flexible > enough to support alternate components. At the moment, however, I want > to shore up the existing framework that I, Mark Hellegers, and others > put together. There's a lot of code in Themis that really needs to be > rewritten, cleaned up, and rethought; getting Javascript support working > is just one of those facets. Beyond that, I don't really have any plans. > While I do want to write a Themis specific rendering engine, it probably > will be best to use web kit for the rendering engine in a 1.0 release. This is such an insane amount of work you guys are talking about here, I would suggest you to really consider how your time is spent most effectively. The challenge in writing a web browser is the huge amount of testing required to handle all the broken pages out there. And there is a magnitude of different content types with different associated behaviour. Personally, I don't understand why the Firefox port does not receive some love. If it has to be WebKit because that's leaner, then give some love to that instead if you really have to. But this is already a much more long term project with unclear outcome. Firefox on the other hand is "almost working perfectly well", as is. Best regards, -Stephan