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.