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
