Talk:Comparison of browser engines: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:58, 1 September 2023

Latest revision as of 09:51, 25 May 2025

(21 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=

{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=

{{WikiProject Computing |class=List |importance=Low |software=yes |software-importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Internet |classimportance=ListLow }}

}}

{{Archives}}

== Criteria for being an 'engine' ==

This is in response to the end of [[Talk:Comparison of browser engines/Archive 2#Inclusionist vs deletionist|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). --[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 02:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

== Adding Eww (Emacs web browser and engine)? ==

Line 15 ⟶ 21:

Also, for reference, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eww_(web_browser)&diff=prev&oldid=1165228926 this edit]. -[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

== 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.

# 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]].

# [[: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]].

# 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.

# 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.

# 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.

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

: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 engine]]s couldn't have comparison pages, but that's new content that would have to be created on separate page(s). -[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 23:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

::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)]]. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

:::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. -[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 04:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

::::Thanks. The piece I just added mentions that some of these engines have a shared history. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 23:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::"Dillo is a lightweight browser, not a browser engine." We need some strict rules for this article, because by this criteria [[Netscape_Navigator|Netscape Navigator]] 0.9 - 4 aren't running a real browser engine, despite being the groundwork for [[Gecko_(software)|Gecko]] an engine listed here. Gecko is either valid or it isn't. - [[User:Lucid00|Lucid00]] ([[User talk:Lucid00|talk]]) 19:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

== Support for Irrelevant standards ==

Line 53 ⟶ 39:

:::It occured to me today that an explanatory note about Blink dominance would be a helpful addition. So [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_browser_engines&diff=prev&oldid=1169198190 I added one]. This seems like a good compromise on this matter. -[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

=== Maybe let's not say that Google Chrome is by definition the best browser ===

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. //[[User:TalyaNe|Talya]] - [[Special:Contributions/TalyaNe|My contributions]] - [[User talk:TalyaNe|Let's talk]]// 10:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

:Disagree. Read [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/free-software-group-decries-google-dropping-space-saving-jpeg-xl-format/ this Ars piece on XL]. This article currently documents ''the way things are'' in an objective manner. (Nowhere does it advocate Chrome as "the best browser".) -[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 05:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

::@[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] no, it just says that things chrome does are good and things chrome doesn't do are bad.

::I mean, I can agree about JXL, but the logic behind that decision can't be that it's not in chrome and therefore not in the chart (which is what happens now). that's non encyclopedic.

::also, I don't see how this piece goes against my suggestion of a second table for less common standards. //[[User:TalyaNe|Talya]] - [[Special:Contributions/TalyaNe|My contributions]] - [[User talk:TalyaNe|Let's talk]]// 07:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

:::No, the article byline literally says "Google, with 80% of browser share, says there's not enough ecosystem interest." Then the FSF rep says "all Google is really doing is asking itself what Google wants." Also, the other referenced article in the footnote states it even more plainly: "The removal of JPEG XL means that none of these above browsers will be able to natively render JPEG XL images, and in turn that effectively dooms the new format, barring the unlikely event of the Mountain View megalith changing course."

:::As for the other item, a second table is not a good idea. Only stuff that's actually relevant to the current websites (especially the big ones, like Alexa top 1000) belongs in those tables. -[[User:Pmffl|Pmffl]] ([[User talk:Pmffl|talk]]) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

::::Again, this doesn't justify making the blanket statement "everything Google does is part of the web and everything it doesn't do isn't", and it definitely doesn't justify not having a second table of less common standards. //[[User:TalyaNe|Talya]] - [[Special:Contributions/TalyaNe|My contributions]] - [[User talk:TalyaNe|Let's talk]]// 05:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

=== Let's not be obtuse. ===

Relevance has absolutely no incidence on whether something should be included or not. Similarly, legacy things like .bmp exist; this should be the only factor that determines whether something should be included or not. Whether it's relevant because "Chrome doesn't support it" or whatever is even more irrelevant. [[User:Nathan67003|Nathan67003]] ([[User talk:Nathan67003|talk]]) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

== Gecko and hevc ==

Firefox (and presumably other gecko based browsers) do have some experimental support for hevc playback on certain platforms that can be enabled via about:config. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:EE2:600:900:600E:8177:D615:ECE5|2A00:EE2:600:900:600E:8177:D615:ECE5]] ([[User talk:2A00:EE2:600:900:600E:8177:D615:ECE5|talk]]) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

== Do all browser engines listed here have to be made for a web browser? ==

I'm asking because Microsoft Office for Windows has a rendering engine that people have dubbed "the Word engine" that has [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/office/developer/office-2007/aa338201(v=office.12)?redirectedfrom=MSDN it's own HTML and CSS parser] and it's completely separate from Trident and Tasman.

It also powered HTML and CSS rendering in Outlook and the Windows Mail app for a while (I'm unsure if it still does).

I feel like it'd fit the criteria here (since it renders HTML and CSS) but it also wasn't made with web browsing in mind. [[User:Lucid00|Lucid00]] ([[User talk:Lucid00|talk]]) 09:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)