10 ms·

no, because that would have meant that IE6 would have been able to "standardize" anything due to the number of "browsers" that were ie wrappers. Alternatively y

by olliej 6y ago

no, because that would have meant that IE6 would have been able to "standardize" anything due to the number of "browsers" that were ie wrappers. Alternatively you could look at the numerous browsers on osx and iOS that are essentially wrappers for a basic [NS|WK]WebView - that would allow any of those to count as an alternate implementation.

thayne 6y ago
So if Mozilla decides maintaining gecko isn't worth it, and switches to blink too, then it's basically just Safari and Chrome, and both would have to agree on standardization?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- olliej 6y ago
  It’s kind of already the case. Functionally mobile safari is the only thing stopping google having complete control of the web platform, just as MS did in the days of IE4-6. There are a bunch of standards that google has proposed that are horrific for user privacy, and I would fully expect all google properties to become dependent on them if they didn’t have to care about mobile safari.
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
I think it's worth distinguishing between "shell" browsers that simply wrap an encapsulated rendering engine (such as those IE6/MSHTML-based browsers from decades ago) and other browsers like Chromium/Edge/Opera which have a different level of integration with the rendering engine - because those browsers are able to tweak and extend - or disable - the engine's features on a granular scale. It's better to compare Chrome/Edge/Opera as "distributions and customizations" of Chromium/Blink instead of mere as wrappers - the same way that Linux distributions aren't reduced to just "GNU/Linux kernel wrappers".
- olliej 6y ago
  No, from the point of view of the engine there is no meaningful difference between the engines. Maybe they change some of the defaults, but none of those various wrappers are shipping engines that are different.

10 ms·

no, because that would have meant that IE6 would have been able to "standardize" anything due to the number of "browsers" that were ie wrappers. Alternatively y

by olliej 6y ago

thayne 6y ago
So if Mozilla decides maintaining gecko isn't worth it, and switches to blink too, then it's basically just Safari and Chrome, and both would have to agree on standardization?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- olliej 6y ago
  It’s kind of already the case. Functionally mobile safari is the only thing stopping google having complete control of the web platform, just as MS did in the days of IE4-6. There are a bunch of standards that google has proposed that are horrific for user privacy, and I would fully expect all google properties to become dependent on them if they didn’t have to care about mobile safari.
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
I think it's worth distinguishing between "shell" browsers that simply wrap an encapsulated rendering engine (such as those IE6/MSHTML-based browsers from decades ago) and other browsers like Chromium/Edge/Opera which have a different level of integration with the rendering engine - because those browsers are able to tweak and extend - or disable - the engine's features on a granular scale. It's better to compare Chrome/Edge/Opera as "distributions and customizations" of Chromium/Blink instead of mere as wrappers - the same way that Linux distributions aren't reduced to just "GNU/Linux kernel wrappers".
- olliej 6y ago
  No, from the point of view of the engine there is no meaningful difference between the engines. Maybe they change some of the defaults, but none of those various wrappers are shipping engines that are different.