GNUstep Web browser (was Re: WebKit Bounty)

[Dennis Leeuw]

This discussion pops up once in a while, the fact that we want a GNUstep 
web browser. From a non-programmer point of view, I would like to make 
the following comments:

Every time this discussion pops up people are looking for short cuts. 
Basing coding on existing projects, which from an open source point of 
view, might be logical, but, from that same open source point of view, 
we are not in a hurry. We can take the time to build a complete 
web-engine from scratch, as long as we build a better engine.

And that is my point. Time is not the issue, it has to be better. There 
are a lot of web browsers around and just a couple of engines. So we 
could steal ideas and code snippets and prove that Objective-C and 
GNUstep are a better base for an engine then anything else around.

And if we are really that good, Apple will use the newly written, 
GNUstep based engine for their next release of Safari ;)

Prove those C++ coders wrong and make the world (wide web) a better place.

With kind regards,

Dennis Leeuw

Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. wrote:
> Chris B. Vetter wrote:
> > On 3/2/07, Camille Bourgoin <monsieur.camille@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In my opinion, a web framewok is absolutely essential. What is the
> > Yes.
> >
> > > best solution ? Starting a Framework from scratch ? Using a preexistent
> > > lightweight engine ?
> > I honestly do not know what the best solution would be. However,
> > starting from scratch probably isn't as there already is work to draw
> > from.
> >
> > The beauty of Objective-C is it's expandability. So I guess the best
> > way would be to write a browser application as a stand-alone (i.e.
> > WITHOUT a build-in WWW engine) providing just the basics, that is, a
> > window (with tabs) that holds the documents (i.e. web pages) and the
> > navigation bar. Everything else is implemented via "plugins."
> >
> > That way, you could use an engine based, say, off libwww, while
> > another group works on porting WebKit, that can then replace the 'old'
> > engine, when it's done. You could even provide both and let the user
> > pick his preferred engine through a preference setting.
> I like this idea...