This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This is in response to the end of an archived thread about the criteria for what should be considered an engine. In principle it's not that hard to define. The browser engine article already does a good job of this, though what's covered there is most applicable to the mainstream engines (which collectively account for over 99% of actual browser usage).
It's a bit trickier for the tiny niche hobbyist projects, like NetSurf and LibWeb. The consensus reached in the archived thread on NetSurf is a good guideline, in that the set of libraries and components that can be called an "engine" could, in theory, be used by another group of hobbyists to make a different browser. This is, after all, at the heart of what a software engine is: a large component that can be reused for a different software project. However, the nature of these types of hobby projects is heavily DIY: the lure of designing and implementing their own new thing is what tends to motivate them. But this doesn't invalidate the design of the software to feasibly be reused by a different project (even if that never actually happens). -- Pmffl ( talk) 02:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, for reference, see this edit. - Pmffl ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm writing this because an IP editor has twice added JPEG 2000 to the image format table. I've removed it both times because it's irrelevant to the real Web; only Safari supports it, so nobody uses it. I'm of the opinion that only relevant stuff should be in those tables. - Pmffl ( talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The article as it stands defines Google Chrome to be the best browser, because everything that it supports is included and everything it doesn't support is irrelevant. Blink will, by definition, have absolutely every square marked as green.
I think it's clear that this position is a hard nut. I mean, given the fact there is no source attached to the statement "[such standards] will not become relevant on the Web", it is as good as WP:OR. I would argue that a good compromise position will be to keep the current table with main standards as is, but add a second, collapsed-by-default table of other, less common standards, such as BMP, JXL etc. // Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 10:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This is in response to the end of an archived thread about the criteria for what should be considered an engine. In principle it's not that hard to define. The browser engine article already does a good job of this, though what's covered there is most applicable to the mainstream engines (which collectively account for over 99% of actual browser usage).
It's a bit trickier for the tiny niche hobbyist projects, like NetSurf and LibWeb. The consensus reached in the archived thread on NetSurf is a good guideline, in that the set of libraries and components that can be called an "engine" could, in theory, be used by another group of hobbyists to make a different browser. This is, after all, at the heart of what a software engine is: a large component that can be reused for a different software project. However, the nature of these types of hobby projects is heavily DIY: the lure of designing and implementing their own new thing is what tends to motivate them. But this doesn't invalidate the design of the software to feasibly be reused by a different project (even if that never actually happens). -- Pmffl ( talk) 02:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, for reference, see this edit. - Pmffl ( talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm writing this because an IP editor has twice added JPEG 2000 to the image format table. I've removed it both times because it's irrelevant to the real Web; only Safari supports it, so nobody uses it. I'm of the opinion that only relevant stuff should be in those tables. - Pmffl ( talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The article as it stands defines Google Chrome to be the best browser, because everything that it supports is included and everything it doesn't support is irrelevant. Blink will, by definition, have absolutely every square marked as green.
I think it's clear that this position is a hard nut. I mean, given the fact there is no source attached to the statement "[such standards] will not become relevant on the Web", it is as good as WP:OR. I would argue that a good compromise position will be to keep the current table with main standards as is, but add a second, collapsed-by-default table of other, less common standards, such as BMP, JXL etc. // Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 10:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)