On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-04-19 19:53, Stephen Powell wrote: >> Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to >> give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why >> epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, >> to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. > > Apple's reason: > "allowed easier development than other technologies by virtue > of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly > designed and standards compliant." > > I'm betting they though to themselves, "If it's good enough for > Apple, it's good enough for us..." > > As for problems in Webkit, I'd say that *one* of the reasons why > gecko is so bloated is all of the edge cases and idiosyncrasies of > html, js, flash, etc, etc that have built up in the code over the years.
Hmm. Well, if they were going to design a brand new browser from scratch today, you make a good case for webkit. But they already had a browser that was working well with gecko. Why switch now? It's a lot of pain for very little gain, it seems to me. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2017422646.157145.1271727625361.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
