On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 23:48 -0400, Adam Hooper wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-09 at 17:36 -0400, John Moser wrote: > > > I guess the simplest question is probably the best: Why not > > Epiphany/Webcore and Epiphany/GECKO? Not a fork, but a back-end plug > > architecture (Read: buzz buzz buzz) that allows users to switch their > > rendering engine either during run (redraw the page on the new engine) > > or with a restart. > > The simplest answer is also best: because it's a lot of work. > So simply, we're talking a bad cost-benefit ratio. Obviously if there was a benefit seen by developers, or a high enough end user demand, it'd be done by now. > Ages ago a proof-of-concept was written. As far as I know, GTK/Webcore > already exists for Nokia's internet tablet, and it's open-source. Some > Epiphany developers tried to adapt it into Epiphany (which already has > an architecture allowing plugging in separate backends) and it worked. > Between that and a finished product is some hard work to shake out the > bugs and some years of debugging to make it reliable. > > So, technically, there's no reason not to do it. Realistically, it's a > matter of putting in a lot of effort. Technically there's almost no reason to do it as well, am I correct? (besides, of course, the convenient smoke-and-mirrors ideas of "some users prefer X to Y" and "sometimes X has bugs not in Y and vice versa") > > Adam -- John Moser <john r moser gmail com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part