Talk:Comparison of layout engines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] webcore for linux
Isn't webcore avaiable for linux by now? http://gtk-webcore.sourceforge.net/
[edit] Definition of "dropped"?
What's the definition of 'dropped' for the support colum? (Mostly mentioning because IE/Mac is no longer under development, even for OS X.)
- But (I believe that) the Tasman layout engine is still used in MS Office for Mac. This is comparison of layout engines, not web browsers. --minghong 15:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- In my understanding "dropped" means "while previous versions exist for that platform, the most current doesn't". Therfore, IE Mac shouldn't be listed as "dropped" for MacOS X, imho. Grey 21:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mozilla products aren't available for BSD any more either.
[edit] IE for Unix
What rendering engine does IE for Unix use? It is no longer being developed, but I imagine that puts it into a similar category as IE for Mac. http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/default.asp
[edit] Wikibooks
Wouldn't the Comparision of layout engines series of articles fit better in Wikibooks than in Wikipedia? Aapo Laitinen 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Missing related articles
I would like to have at least three more articles:
1. Support for ECMAScript
2. Support for de-facto standards in scripting (innerHTML, XMLHttpRequest, self.offsetWidth, etc.)
3. Support for E4X
And maybe (with all appropriate warnings highlighted)
4. Support for non-standard HTML (old tags like marquee, spacer, etc. and new HTML 5 tags).
--itpastorn 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trident free?
"While the source code is not free, the Trident engine is available as a DLL module for free, excluding the cost of Microsoft Windows." This seems like a strange thing to say. Why should the cost of Windows be excluded?
[edit] Good/bad colours for open source
Not everyone holds that open source is "good" and that closed source is "bad". So why are they labelled green and red respectively – colours that are almost universally used to represent "good/bad" and "pass/fail"? El T 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of opinion whether open source is good. With open source, companies have the option of hiring someone to fix bugs or add features they want. That is an advantage closed source software does not have. Are you disputing this as a clear advantage? -- Schapel 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm therewhile not sure if OpenSource should be a category at all. There is a license column that covers all needed facts and more. LGPL/GPL => OpenSource. Proprietary => ClosedSource. Easy as is. Grey 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Green merely means "yes" and red merely means "no." We're presenting facts. See also the template talk pages. --Karnesky 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What's the point of the "latest testing release" column?
The "Latest testing release" column (under release history) is pretty useless. Two products - Gecko and Webcore - claim to be released at least daily, meaning no link to their current testing release is possible. Presto is listed as having no testing release, which isn't true.
But seriously, who is going to update these things once a week, or whenever they're announced? Much better is simply a link to the test release page, if one exists, rather than attempting to name the specific current build. El T 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preparing to delete
I'm sure people must have an opinion on this. But if not, I'll delete the latest release columns in a few days.
- I agree, there is no point in continually updating such a trivial piece of data. --Wulf 00:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tasman
I've changed Tasman's Leading Application to Entourage, given the fact that IE for Mac isn't officially available anymore.
I've also changed it's latest release to 1.0 ("11 May 2004 (?)"). But, I'm not sure that's the proper release date. So, I'll be contacting Microsoft sometime this week, unless somebody already knows the proper date.
Wulf 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've now changed the price for Tasman to $399.99, because the only way to get it is as part Office 2004 for Mac. I'm currently waiting for a response from Microsoft regarding the release date. --Wulf 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: They've shuffled me off to another team, which I'll be contacting by phone tomorrow. --Wulf 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Resolution: Okay, I called the Product Information Team (which actually started off by reading this article to find out 
), which called the Office 2004 for Mac team, which directed me to Microsoft Mactopia, where I found somebody's HTTP header from Entourage 2004, which says "User-Agent: … Tasman 1.0…". And, since Entourage was the first public release of Tasman since the set-top box development, the Tasman 1.0 release date should indeed by 11 May 2004… I've updated the article accordingly. --Wulf 21:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
