Talk:WebKit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] Merge of WebKit subprojects

Since KWQ is a component of of WebKit, and the article is a stub with almost identical text to the description already here, I think KWQ should be deleted, and redirect to WebKit#KWQ. Hertzsprung 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I used a lot of the text from the webkit component articles that used to be separate because most of them were short and outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.145.1 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely, all the subprojects are stubs at the moment, and I don't see why they shouldn't be merged into this article. I propose merging WebCore, JavaScriptCore, KWQ, and Drosera into here. If there are no objections, I'll do this in the next few days. Hertzsprung 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's good reason to merge them, but if so the lead needs to be reworked to get to the point about it being an open source project deployed to multiple platforms faster than it does now. --Steven Fisher 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I consent your proposal that merge WebCore into the WebKit article. QQ (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of WebKit subprojects

Webkit isn´t just an Mac OS component anymore. It´s a base system for lots of other browsers, including safari, konqueror, Nokia Series 60 web browser and even Google´s Android platform web browser. So i think it should be and separated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.194.143 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote for merging. In the meantime they reference each other better. Mathiastck (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected that, and also added that Apple is not the exclusive developer of the code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.217.178 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ars Technica

The sentence "The next month Ars Technica published an article announcing that the KDE team was going to move from KHTML to WebKit." has a reference after it, but it is to Dot.KDE not Ars Technica, and I see no reference to Ars. Superm401 - Talk 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KWQ

KWQ is no longer part of WebCore or WebKit. You can see one of the commits that was involved in eliminating it here: http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/15253, and a search for kwq* in my webkit checkout turns up nothing. I would suggest that the mentions of KWQ in the article either be removed, or be changed to be past tense. 71.236.163.69 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo?

should the logo be replaced or is there a reason its the safari compase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.94 (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What about including the "Safari compass in a box" icon at [1]? It's the icon shown in the upper-left of Webkit.org, which is listed as the "official" site for Webkit. It looks much more professional to have some image in the infobox.
—LinkTiger (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Apple's Safari uses a silver-tone compass. The WebKit.org site uses a gold-tone compass in a package box. There are two variants that are used, one with pale blue inside the box and one with pale gold inside the box. The website also uses a gold-tone compass in its favicon. When a WebKit nightly build (binary) is downloaded, its icon is a gold-tone compass without the package box. Both variations of the gold-tone compass in a package box are part of the publicly available SVN source code. WebKit.org states, “WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses. Complete license and copyright information can be found within the code.” The folders that hold the WebKit site are included, but don't contain any license text (aside from the aforementioned quote) and the meta data area of these images appears blank. ... I don't know what image rights hoops one might have to jump though, but I hope these details help the discussion. --Charles Gaudette (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the gold icon, that is the icon for the WebKit nightly application. I don't think any icon is appropriate. The article is about the framework, which is now supported on a number of platforms, so even the generic Mac OS X framework icon is not appropriate. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

" WebKit and its components are small and fast, have clean source code, and support the latest standards for web content." I removed this as its POV and webkit only gets 90/100 on acid3. There also seams to be no critisim of the horrible comits that apple would do when they originally forked (theyd basically dump all of the changes just before a version release in order to comply with the licesne but this meant laege blocks of badly comented code, which was hard/impossible to work back into khtml and cuased the fork.--77.99.171.94 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Acid3 author, Ian Hickson,[1] getting WebKit a low score was hard, due to its excellent standards compliance. He's an authority on the issue: not only did he write both Acid tests, but he's also the editor of the HTML5 specification. There is no reason to consider him biased towards WebKit, and I believe his word is sufficient basis to support a claim that WebKit has - at the very least - above par standards compliance.
If finding compliance bugs in WebKit was hard for someone that knowledgable, it must have been quite good. Would you agree that the link provided is sufficient source to refute your claim that the original score was proof that high standards compliance is not a noteworthy feature of WebKit?
The remainder of your criticisms - whilst originally justified - is mostly of historic nature today. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article that it took some time before WebKit became a proper open source project, but I do believe that it's an inaccurate description of the current state of affairs.
Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)