On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 00:36 -0400, John Moser wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 23:48 -0400, Adam Hooper wrote: > > 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") Well, there's certainly reason to do it -- otherwise, you wouldn't have written to the list in the first place :). A small part of the reason is purely political -- "look, Mozilla, we don't need you, we *choose* you, so don't give us reason to switch". With the existing proof-of-concept, this is already available to us. The rest is technical: smaller memory footprint, potentially faster page loads, works better for a few web pages, etc. But webcore has a large set of bugs. Having used Gecko for ages, Epiphany developers are aware of most of the icky Mozilla bugs, but the webcore ones would be brand new. That leads to: - a huge amount of effort to work around some annoyances (witness just how much work went into Epiphany's "focus location bar on new tab" behaviour) - a huge amount of effort to fix webcore where it doesn't play nice with Epiphany - after all that, double the current effort just to maintain Epiphany So, the cost is high. We're not quite sure just how much benefit there is. Who knows -- there's a chance that the benefit outweighs the cost (at least to certain people). And the beauty of open-source is that anybody who's willing can go ahead and do it, and then we'll really know. But nobody wants to :). -- Adam Hooper adamh densi com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part