Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 1st Jan 2010 15:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 401960
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sorry. but you're way off. WK doesn't need to actually be mobile, that's why it's getting so popular, a full browser that can run on mobiles.
webkit isn't tied to apple, they do dedicate a lot of money to the project with their coders, it also hasn't stopped a number of other companies using webkit and releasing things on their own schedule.
there is a clear difference between webkit's release cycle and Safari's release cycle.
sorry. but you're way off. WK doesn't need to actually be mobile, that's why it's getting so popular, a full browser that can run on mobiles.
You are missing the point. I didn't say it needs a mobile version. I said there's no WK for mobile. That is, there is no single WK engine for mobile. It's all a bunch of incompatible forks.
webkit isn't tied to apple, they do dedicate a lot of money to the project with their coders, it also hasn't stopped a number of other companies using webkit and releasing things on their own schedule.
The Webkit project is mostly run by Apple. Other companies have released WK based browsers, such as Nokia. And guess what, they created a fork which ended up miles away from Apple's WK, so they had to go back to the drawing board and do it all over again.
there is a clear difference between webkit's release cycle and Safari's release cycle.
You are missing the point again. Apple runs the WK project. As an example, Nokia forked WK and made their own mobile browser. But it was so troublesome to both work on their own fork and implement all the changes Apple added to the main WK code, so Nokia's browser ended up a completely separate fork which they had to throw away and start from scratch because all their changes were impossible to merge back since WK and Nokia's fork had evolved far away from each other.
The "one mobile engine to rule them all" is the wet dream of ignorant people who think it's just a matter of checking out the codebase and making a browser. It's much, much harder than that because Apple is moving WK in a certain direction, and if your plans deviate even a tiny bit from that, you'll end up with an incompatible fork.
Also, browsers using webkit will always be "owned" by Apple since Apple basically runs the WK project. So anyone who goes for WK will either be a slave to Apple's release cycles
WebKit has no release cycles. Each port (Cocoa, Qt, GTK, Chrome) has its own cycle. Each port is managed separately. Apple only manages the Cocoa port.





Member since:
2009-08-20
Out of the basement?
Opera is the #1 mobile browser, with a market share of nearly 30% or so.
The world is not moving to WK. What is happening is that there are a lot of WK forks. There is no mobile WK:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/10/there_is_no_web.htm...
Your imaginary scenario where the engine will be the same will never happen.
Also, browsers using webkit will always be "owned" by Apple since Apple basically runs the WK project. So anyone who goes for WK will either be a slave to Apple's release cycles, or will have to fork WK and develop it into something entirely different, and you're stuck with two different engines anyway in the end.