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

[address@hidden]

On 23 Mrz., 16:40, Helge Hess <helge.h...@opengroupware.org> wrote:
>
> I suppose nobody questions that, its just that the goals are  
> different. Apparently Nikolaus just wants to build a browser with  
> great standards support (maybe thats why its named *Simple* WebKit?).  

Exactly - we just want implement the standard and simple things so
that they work. Not to please everybody, no portability to different
platforms, not to handle workarounds on the server side for rare bugs
of other browsers etc.

> The only thing I'm a bit concerned about is how the two  
> implementations would live side by side if SimpleWebKit directly  
> implements WebKit classes instead of using a separate class hierarchy  
> which is then somehow mapped to the WebKit classes.
> To bad we don't have namespaces in ObjC ;-)

There is no problem to expect with that. Both implement the documented
WebView and WebFrame API in two different frameworks. You can link to
either one in your applications (there is IMHO no reason to have both
in a single application). So, from API point of view they are
interchangeable. Maybe, not from functionality.

> Well, even if just a small JavaScript ObjC interpreter comes out of  
> this, it would be a very cool and useful thing! :-)

Yes... it is already working well for simple expressions like
(3+5)*8+" km". Parsing of the whole ECMAScript syntax is at approx.
90%. Evaluation lacks handling of variables and control structures.
And, the builtin Script-Prototypes like Array, Boolean plus their
methods wait for implementation.

Nikolaus Schaller