(another) WebKit port of Browse
tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net
Tue Jul 8 14:34:13 EDT 2008
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz
<bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> | On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net> wrote:
> |> We could add many more of the missing features to Browse if all the
> |> developers weren't so busy with the rest of Sugar. Also, although most
> |> of the sugar developers have occasionally hacked on Browse, we are far
> |> from experts in the big piece of code that Mozilla is.
> | This was my original point. We either have sufficient resources to
> | develop our own browser, or we don't. I think it will (in the end) be
> | more efficient to develop small Firefox extensions to support Journal
> | integration and collaboration, rather than taxing the sugar developers
> | with an attempt to (basically) reimplement large parts of firefox.
> I disagree. I expect that these two options will require a very similar
> amount of code... but one of them is already largely complete (if beta),
> while the other is hypothetical.
> Browse a custom UI on XULRunner, with brand-new code for sharing and
> datastore access. Moving that code into extensions doesn't reduce the
> amount of code. Neither of these scenarios is more "our own browser" than
> the other.
Adding to Ben's comments, I would like to remember that by embedding a
browser widget (mozilla or webkit) inside a python activity we are
giving great opportunities to hack around it, either in derivatives of
Browse or in new activities.
If we just added a number of extensions to Firefox either in C++ or
JS, could we deliver as much to the kids that want to study and modify
the software on their machines?
More information about the Devel