| |
RISC OS Open Reveal Shared Source Initiative |
| |
Chris (21:55 29/9/2006)
Phlamethrower (10:04 30/9/2006)
fwibbler (21:43 30/9/2006)
pnaulls (22:54 30/9/2006)
Chris (20:07 1/10/2006)
guestx (20:59 1/10/2006)
pnaulls (13:34 2/10/2006)
guestx (18:17 2/10/2006)
pnaulls (19:38 2/10/2006)
|
| |
|
Chris |
Message #94235, posted by Chris at 21:55, 29/9/2006 |
Member
Posts: 283
|
Wow. Surely a good move. Let's hope this brings more development, and a more regular release of RO updates from Castle for Iyonix users. Will be very interesting to see how this develops... |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #94236, posted by Phlamethrower at 10:04, 30/9/2006, in reply to message #94235 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
":o"
(wtf? it claimed that over 70% of my message was caps!) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
fwibbler |
Message #94237, posted by fwibbler at 21:43, 30/9/2006, in reply to message #94236 |
Posts: 320
|
This is probably a good thing I think.
It will be interesting to see what direction Paint and Draw are developed in and whether it matches with the much improved versions ROL have produced.
Hopefully the Shared C lib can be developed for use on all systems (A9).
Also, it would be nice to see a much updated version of Printers and PDumper modules. I used to see that as almost as important as a decent browser.
Speaking of which: I'm not sure if acces to Browse source code is a good or bad thing. Surely it will need so much work to make it competitive, that effort would be better spent on other browsers?
The SE Show 21st Oct might be interesting now.
Cheers! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #94238, posted by pnaulls at 22:54, 30/9/2006, in reply to message #94237 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
"Speaking of which: I'm not sure if acces to Browse source code is a good or bad thing. Surely it will need so much work to make it competitive, that effort would be better spent on other browsers?"
Yes, although only Andrew could comment on how advanced it is at present. Although it has JS support, I doubt it has NetSurf's advanced CSS support. If there's going to be more original RISC OS browser development, I'd much rather see it in NetSurf. RISC OS has already suffered greatly from fragmentation of application development. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris |
Message #94239, posted by Chris at 20:07, 1/10/2006, in reply to message #94238 |
Member
Posts: 283
|
Yup - I hope Browse doesn't divert effort away from NetSurf, which is excellent and developing fast. I suppose, though, NetSurf development might be helped a bit by looking at the Browse source, maybe if JavaScript is ever attempted in the future.
IMO, the most interesting components of the above list are the SCL (especially being an A9 owner), the Printer Manager and Unicode (printing from NetSurf! :). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
GuestX |
Message #94240, posted by guestx at 20:59, 1/10/2006, in reply to message #94239 |
Member
Posts: 102
|
At least with Netsurf, there's a possibility of using various open source JavaScript implementations. With the not-yet-announced Browse licence, it's quite possible that those implementations may have some kind of licensing incompatibility. But technically, having a decent layout engine (CSS isn't just about fonts and colours) is much more significant that supporting some old version of JavaScript, so developing Netsurf makes more sense. And from a licensing perspective, there's no doubt that Netsurf is the one to develop further. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #94241, posted by pnaulls at 13:34, 2/10/2006, in reply to message #94240 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
"At least with Netsurf, there's a possibility of using various open source JavaScript implementations"
Why do I have to keep correcting this?
Browse, Oregano 1, 2 and Firefox all use the same JS _engine_; as would Netsurf. That's neither here nor there. What's missing is all the bits that tie to the browser to get the full JS functionality. That's the bit that has to be original and is a considerable amount of effort. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
GuestX |
Message #94242, posted by guestx at 18:17, 2/10/2006, in reply to message #94241 |
Member
Posts: 102
|
"What's missing is all the bits that tie to the browser to get the full JS functionality. That's the bit that has to be original and is a considerable amount of effort."
I contest that it isn't anywhere near as much effort as writing a complete layout engine that works quickly and reliably for something like CSS2, which is what many sites depend upon today (and which is presumably what Netsurf supports). |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Naulls |
Message #94243, posted by pnaulls at 19:38, 2/10/2006, in reply to message #94242 |
Member
Posts: 317
|
Probably not, but we're talking 4+ years (existing NetSurf including CSS) versus a year or more for JS. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
