Content deleted Content added
→Criteria for being an 'engine': modify comment for archived thread |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
}}
{{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
== Adding Eww (Emacs web browser and engine)? ==
Line 34 ⟶ 40:
:::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.
Line 46 ⟶ 53:
::::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)
===
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)
▲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).
== 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)
▲It's a bit trickier for the tiny niche hobbyist projects, like NetSurf and LibWeb. The consensus reached above 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)
| |||