Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of browser engines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmffl (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 17 July 2023 (archive some more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adding Eww (Emacs web browser and engine)?

Eww_(web_browser) is a rendering engine integrated in Emacs since version 24.4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArneBab (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago I reverted the addition of Eww here. I hadn't heard of it before and seeing a few minutes of it on Youtube shows that it's an extremely limited browsing capability baked into Emacs. (It's early 1990s style browsing.)
Here's the current problem with Eww as it's classified on Wikipedia: it's categorized as a web browser and written about as such (and is in the web browser template). If it's a stand-alone browser (albeit with extremely limited capabilities) then it cannot also be classified as an engine too. It would have to be one or the other. As it stands, it's a browser here on Wikipedia, not an engine. --Pmffl (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited this today and just rewrote the Eww article. It is indeed a lightweight browser, and is certainly not a browser engine. (There are underlying libraries in Emacs required for it to run.) So that should settle this issue here. --Pmffl (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionist vs deletionist

These are completely subjective preferences. But User:Pmffl claims to be able to explain why these points are "wrong" on the talk page so I'll bite.

  1. Links to Comparison of layout engines (XML), Comparison of layout engines (DOM). Comparison of layout engines (ECMAScript) and Comparison of layout engines (SVG) are at least as relevant here as they are on Comparison of web browsers.
  2. Category: Layout engine comparisons should appear beside Category: Browser engine comparisons unless you want Comparison of layout engines to no longer redirect to Comparison of browser engines.
  3. Dillo is not actively developed but that doesn't matter. Since the project is open source, it doesn't immediately stop working on all the platforms listed here as soon as someone decides to stop adding new features.
  4. Hubbub is actively developed and NetSurf is modular enough for it to be called an engine so it should clearly be here. If you think it's not well known, all the more reason to put it in Wikipedia.
  5. Sourced facts about the selection of browser engines also give us a chance to teach people something new. Judging by other types of software, people could easily be surprised to learn that all the engines they've ever used are written in C++ and forked from either KDE, Netscape or MS.

Connor Behan (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not completely subjective. Point 3 is irrelevant because Dillo is a lightweight browser, not a browser engine. Hubbub is a parsing library (as stated on its launchpad page), so not a full-fledged layout and rendering engine.
For point 5, programming language is a minor detail for this page. I don't think it merits inclusion. It's really only relevant to browser devs, whereas this article should be suitable for the lay public.
As for layout engine comparisons, the page had nothing but browser engines before which is why it redirects here now. This is not to say other types of layout engines couldn't have comparison pages, but that's new content that would have to be created on separate page(s). -Pmffl (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take back the request for Dillo because indeed there is not an engine that can be cleanly separated. But for NetSurf there is one. It's called "Hubbub + LibCSS + LibDOM". The only difference I can see compared to "Xul + Xpcom + Thebes" is that there's no marketing name like "Gecko" to encompass the whole thing.
You mean the lay public who just wants a browser to work and doesn't care what engine it uses or even realizes that a browser engine is a thing? No, the audience of a software comparison page is on the technically savvy end. They may not be browser devs but it's fine if a page has something for everyone. A language column and a simple note about forking history does not take up anywhere near as much space as a niche tag-by-tag list at Comparison of browser engines (HTML support). Connor Behan (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After posting yesterday I actually took a closer look at NetSurf to verify its claim of having its own engine. Since the homepage lists all of their custom libraries, I agree their homebrew combination contitutes a distinct browser engine. So I added it to the table now, and will add it to the template.
But I still disagree about adding the programming language. That info is readily available at each engine page. By "lay public" I don't just mean clueless users, but non-technical folks who are curious to learn more about how browsers work. A Language column is TMI for them. -Pmffl (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The piece I just added mentions that some of these engines have a shared history. Connor Behan (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Dillo is a lightweight browser, not a browser engine." We need some strict rules for this article, because by this criteria Netscape Navigator 0.9 - 4 aren't running a real browser engine, despite being the groundwork for Gecko an engine listed here. Gecko is either valid or it isn't. - Lucid00 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_browser_engines&oldid=1165837622"