Re: SimpleWebKit (was GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty))

[jhclouse]

On 2007-03-18 20:07:17 -0400 Mark Rowe <bdash@webkit.org> wrote:

> I feel compelled to mention the incredibly large amount of work that will be 
> required to bring SimpleWebKit up to a reasonable standard of web 
> compatibility. HTML, XHTML, and CSS are not simple specifications. Supporting 
> them to a sufficient degree to have a usable web browser is quite an ask. Add 
> in the requirement for handling technologies like JavaScript, the HTML and 
> CSS DOMs, and browser plugins and you significantly increase the complexity 
> and man-hours required.
> 
> A common misunderstanding is that the only complex part in creating a web 
> browser is supporting "broken" web pages.  It is true that this can 
> complicate matters, but the fact that no major web browsers have *complete* 
> support for the majority of web standards should give some idea as to how 
> much work is involved in implementing them.  Internet Explorer and Mozilla 
> have been developed over the last 10 years, primarily by full-time software 
> engineers.

Not only so, but there's the fact that a lot of websites are tested in one, 
MAYBE two browsers.  If you're not bug-for-bug compatible with Gecko, IE, or 
WebKit, you're wasting your time.  Period.  Using an existing engine is a force 
multiplier.  Not using an existing engine is insanity, unless you have a very 
restricted set of goals.  If you want a web browser, your goals are not so 
limited.  Anybody who thinks "I'll just implement those handy open specs on 
w3c.org!" is on a fool's errand.

Go ahead and do it if you want, but it's not suitable for a web browser, 
especially with a small set of developers.