Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Apr 2013 22:27 UTC
Google It's apparently browser engine day today. After Mozilla and Samsung announcing Servo, Google has just announced it's forking WebKit into Blink. Like WebKit, Blink will be open source, and it will also be used by other browser makers - most prominently, Opera has already announced it's not using WebKit, but Blink. Update: Courtesy of MacRumors, this graph illustrates how just how much Google contributed to WebKit. Much more than I thought. Also, Chrome developer Alex Russell: "To make a better platform faster, you must be able to iterate faster. Steps away from that are steps away from a better platform. Today's WebKit defeats that imperative in ways large and small. It's not anybody's fault, but it does need to change. And changing it will allow us to iterate faster, working through the annealing process that takes a good idea from drawing board to API to refined feature."
Thread beginning with comment 557559
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by vtolkov
by Radio on Thu 4th Apr 2013 07:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by vtolkov"
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Except this:

Adding New Features

In addition to making the web platform faster and more secure, improving the web platform also means adding new capabilities and features. To fulfill our good citizenship mission, we need to be careful to add new features to the web platform in a transparent, responsible, and compatible manner. We measure success as moving the open web platform forward as a whole, not just as moving one implementation forward.

In practice, we strive to ensure that the features we ship by default have open standards. As we work on features, we track their progress in the web standards community with the Chromium Features Dashboard, which lets us be transparent about the status of each feature and about how we make decisions about which features to enable by default for the open web.

Compatibility risk is one of the most important decision criteria for enabling new web platform features by default.

Factors that decrease compatibility risk (in rough order of magnitude):

Other vendors shipping compatible implementations
A mature specification in the relevant standards body
Positive signals from other browser vendors
Small API footprint

In practice, the following tiers are good rules of thumb to know that the feature is on the right track (ordered by increasing risk to compatibility and therefore decreasing order of desirability):

Two other browser engines already ship roughly interoperable implementations in stable or experimental channels. In this situation, the feature is already a de facto standard. If a de jure standard does not yet exist, we should help create one.
One other browser engine ships a roughly interoperable implementation in a stable or experimental channel, we believe the feature to be stable, and we’ve consulted with the appropriate standards body.
The appropriate standards body considers the feature ready for implementation. For example, the W3C issuing a Call for Implementations or publishing a Candidate Recommendation of the feature would meet this guideline.
The specification for the feature has been accepted by the appropriate standards working group (e.g., a First Public Working Draft in the W3C) and we’ve received positive feedback from other browser engines about the feature’s feasibility and value.
We hope to work with other browser vendors to develop a common approach to shipping experimental features. For example, Mozilla has already embarked on a similar policy. As part of this process, we may revise our approach as we gain more experience with it or to align with other browser vendors.


But yeah, Google is the new evil Microsoft. /s

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by vtolkov
by vtolkov on Thu 4th Apr 2013 15:37 in reply to "RE: Comment by vtolkov"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

The innovation was exactly Microsoft's argument. It is a common argument, as if users want innovation from browsers.
Others are explanations, maybe reasons, but it is not what will happen. What will happen is contributors will split between two engine. Google hopes, that most of them will work on Blink, and so less will work on Webkit. Another reason, that Google does not have to port changes back to Webkit themselves. They just want to reduce their direct contribution to Apple, thats it.
What I see as a problem for myself is that I'll need to support one 'innovative' engine more.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by vtolkov
by Valhalla on Thu 4th Apr 2013 16:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by vtolkov"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

The innovation was exactly Microsoft's argument. It is a common argument, as if users want innovation from browsers.

Of course they want 'innovation' or rather new features, better performance, etc for their browsers. How do you think Mozilla managed to take a huge chunk of the browser market share from IE to begin with?

Microsoft paid no heed to standards and could get away with that because they had leveraged their desktop market dominance to being the 'de facto' standard browser, with appalling results. The situation we have today with several competing browsers is nothing like that.

Adding new browser features does not equal breaking standard compliance, tab process separation has no effect on web standards, faster javascript has no effect on web standards, neither does plugins architectures, mouse gestures, customization, automatic updates, private browsing etc. Yet these are 'innovations' which are popular with users.

And as for standards, delivering the best support for existing standards is also a feature with which to attract users, like HTML5, which will lead to better standard adherence all around when the browser engines have to compete.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by vtolkov
by Radio on Fri 5th Apr 2013 13:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by vtolkov"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The innovation was exactly Microsoft's argument.

My god. Microsoft used this argument. And, obviously, they were the only ones to make this argument, of course; because neither Apple nor Mozilla nor Opera ever claimed their engine would bring more, better stuff. I mean, even webkit never claimed they would be better than everybody else. So now that Google makes the same claim, that puts them in the same league as Microsoft.

QED.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by vtolkov
by Deviate_X on Thu 4th Apr 2013 16:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by vtolkov"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Oh please, the whole purpose of the forking, is to take control, and do thing without hampering.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by vtolkov
by bassbeast on Sun 7th Apr 2013 22:21 in reply to "RE: Comment by vtolkov"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I can provide the same kind of BS from MSFT about IE in the 90s...your point? Words are just that, its deeds that count. We'll have to see how much they change and how compatible it is with standards, if we start seeing "this site requires blink" we'll be too late so we have to be vigilant NOW.

BTW can we stop this "Microsoft was an evil genius" bit I've seen too many times about their history under gates? Because honestly the best they could be called would be a bumbling henchman that caught a break. if you look at the history of the company objectively every success is preceded by "And then the other guy did something REALLY dumb". Just look at IE owning the web for so long for an example...how did it happen? Some genius at Netscape decided to rewrite the browser at a critical time and made a giant crashy mess, so people were actually downloading IE because while it wasn't as nice as NS at least you could look at more than 2 pages in a row without a crash.

So I never understood why MSFT was looked upon as evil geniuses, if anything they were just blessed with REALLY stupid competitors. The freefall of the company can be directly laid on the fact this is 2013 and their competition isn't pants wettingly retarded. But you name ANY success they've had and I'll show you a "and then the competition did something REALLY dumb"...Xbox? Sony pricing the PS3 at $600 which was twice what the market would bear. MS Office? Wordperfect ignored Windows and put out a lame DOS port that sucked resources and crashed a lot. Windows? Apple was run by one bad CEO after another that stuffed the channel with junk while BeOS stuck with one failed CPU after another and by the time they realized X86 was gonna win it was too late.

So we really need to kill the whole "evil genius" myth as history just doesn't bear it out. All those memos with buzzwords like "EEE" sure sound good but in reality it was just a company trying to sound like what they did on accident was really on purpose. I mean what did you expect them to say? "Wow we sure got lucky the competition was so dim"?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by vtolkov
by zima on Wed 10th Apr 2013 21:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by vtolkov"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Some genius at Netscape decided to rewrite the browser at a critical time and made a giant crashy mess, so people were actually downloading IE because while it wasn't as nice as NS at least you could look at more than 2 pages in a row without a crash.

It was caused more by a race towards new features (at the expense of fixing bugs) during the first browser war, not any large rewrite. The old Netscape was generally poorer than IE, and in rapid decline during the relevant timespan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Browser_Wars.svg

Edited 2013-04-10 21:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2