Re: [MiNT] www-browser engines (was: This must be an gcc / ld error!)

[Paul Wratt <paul.wratt@gmail.com>]

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Miro Kropacek <miro.kropacek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If someone forwards good arguments for having a closer look at
>> WebKit/Origyn port (from the developer / porter point of view) I would
>> like to have a deeper look at it :) Somehow I can't sympathise with WebKit
>> today...
> It's of course only my point of view, but please, continue your work
> on NS. With distractions like that you'll never finish any of them, my
> own porter's experience ;) Your arguments in favor of NS are sane,
> webkit/owb could be your next step, in case you success with NS and
> there will be serious demand for better browser. GEM frontend for NS =
> best option for today.
>
> --
> MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
> http://mikro.atari.org
>
Agreed

If you get around to looking at OWB and decide to give it a go, I will
lend a (committed) hand, simply because I have need of its potential

Origyn is by no means "the bee's knee's", but it was ported to
AmigaOS, its webkit engine is based on the "low fat" versions being
pushed for mobile devices, both of which are a plus in AtariST column

Note that there are others too.

I would say that the main reason for NetSurf's JS integration being "a
long way off" is simply because they dont have anyone dedicated to
that part of the project, its actually quite complex (especially in
our case where size an speed are major issues)

ATM (historically speaking) we can live without a JS engine, we are
kind of used to that, just as long as the browser is compliant and
contains a DOM

Cheers

Paul