4 ms·

Chrome used an already existing render engine and improved on it.

hayleox 4y ago
More specifically, Chrome used Safari's rendering engine, and Safari used Konqueror's rendering engine, because even in 2001, starting a browser engine from scratch seemed like too much work.
- danjoredd 4y ago
  In the end, it all leads back to Konqueror. Pretty sad to see that piece of software go, considering its historical significance
- rob74 4y ago
  I would say that in 2001, starting a browser engine from scratch was more work than today, because (as other commenters have noted) since then the specifications have become more robust and the "tag soup" sites not following the specs have become fewer.
  - aylmao 4y ago
    Moreover, tools are better too. Even if one is still using only vim on the terminal, plugins work better, screens are bigger, code compiles faster, and the internet has better resources for everything from programming and communicating with your team, to just finding music that helps you stay productive, for example.
    - dolmen 4y ago
      The Internet also has more social networks to keep you away from being productive.
  - panic 4y ago
    Today's HTML spec defines precisely what will happen for any input—feed modern browsers all the tag soup you'd like!
  - Devasta 4y ago
    https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2021/ https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2021/ Most sites still don't have valid HTML. EDIT: my link is old. 98% of the top 100 sites had invalid HTML in 2021, in 2022 we've managed to hit 100%, great job everyone! https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2022/ https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2022/
    - zelphirkalt 4y ago
      This does not surprise me at all, with all the "must be a web app", still treating HTML mostly as a string in many web frameworks and semantically inappropriately using tags. It is exactly as I thought, the ratio of invalid HTML has become even worse. Probably most web devs these days do not even check their websites for HTML validity, because achieving it with the frameworks they chose is hard or impossible.
      - smolder 4y ago
        I think you severely underestimate "frameworks" if you think generating valid HTML is somehow harder with them than without.
    - dolmen 4y ago
      Well, the W3C validator also has issues which do not help. For example, Wikipedia doesn't validate [0] because its CSS has "aspect-ratio: 1" which looks ok to me regarding the spec [1]. [0]: https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css3svg&usermedium=all&vextwarning=true&uri=https://en.wikipedia.org/ https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css3sv... [1]: https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-values-4/#ratio-value https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-values-4/#ratio-value
    - chrismorgan 4y ago
      “Invalid HTML” is completely irrelevant. HTML parsing is defined exhaustively; “parse errors” are purely “you probably made a mistake, but I’ll keep going” indications, and all browsers will do the same thing.
      - 4y ago
  - illiarian 4y ago
    In 2001 the entirety of HTML+CSS spec was probably less than just some of CSS modules like CSS Color. Today the complexity lies not in the robustness of the specs, but in the sheer number of of them, and their many interactions. I mean, just distance units... There are over forty of them
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    The problem was solved by standardizing tag-soup. Now just any tag-soup will get displayed the same according to the new specs.
- shp0ngle 4y ago
  And Firefox is going all the way back to Netscape Navigator...
jojobas 4y ago
[flagged]

More specifically, Chrome used Safari's rendering engine, and Safari used Konqueror's rendering engine, because even in 2001, starting a browser engine from scratch seemed like too much work.

danjoredd 4y ago
In the end, it all leads back to Konqueror. Pretty sad to see that piece of software go, considering its historical significance
rob74 4y ago
I would say that in 2001, starting a browser engine from scratch was more work than today, because (as other commenters have noted) since then the specifications have become more robust and the "tag soup" sites not following the specs have become fewer.
- aylmao 4y ago
  Moreover, tools are better too. Even if one is still using only vim on the terminal, plugins work better, screens are bigger, code compiles faster, and the internet has better resources for everything from programming and communicating with your team, to just finding music that helps you stay productive, for example.
  - dolmen 4y ago
    The Internet also has more social networks to keep you away from being productive.
- panic 4y ago
  Today's HTML spec defines precisely what will happen for any input—feed modern browsers all the tag soup you'd like!
- Devasta 4y ago
  https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2021/ https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2021/ Most sites still don't have valid HTML. EDIT: my link is old. 98% of the top 100 sites had invalid HTML in 2021, in 2022 we've managed to hit 100%, great job everyone! https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2022/ https://meiert.com/en/blog/valid-html-2022/
  - zelphirkalt 4y ago
    This does not surprise me at all, with all the "must be a web app", still treating HTML mostly as a string in many web frameworks and semantically inappropriately using tags. It is exactly as I thought, the ratio of invalid HTML has become even worse. Probably most web devs these days do not even check their websites for HTML validity, because achieving it with the frameworks they chose is hard or impossible.
    - smolder 4y ago
      I think you severely underestimate "frameworks" if you think generating valid HTML is somehow harder with them than without.
  - dolmen 4y ago
    Well, the W3C validator also has issues which do not help. For example, Wikipedia doesn't validate [0] because its CSS has "aspect-ratio: 1" which looks ok to me regarding the spec [1]. [0]: https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css3svg&usermedium=all&vextwarning=true&uri=https://en.wikipedia.org/ https://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css3sv... [1]: https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-values-4/#ratio-value https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/css-values-4/#ratio-value
  - chrismorgan 4y ago
    “Invalid HTML” is completely irrelevant. HTML parsing is defined exhaustively; “parse errors” are purely “you probably made a mistake, but I’ll keep going” indications, and all browsers will do the same thing.
    - 4y ago
- illiarian 4y ago
  In 2001 the entirety of HTML+CSS spec was probably less than just some of CSS modules like CSS Color. Today the complexity lies not in the robustness of the specs, but in the sheer number of of them, and their many interactions. I mean, just distance units... There are over forty of them
- still_grokking 4y ago
  The problem was solved by standardizing tag-soup. Now just any tag-soup will get displayed the same according to the new specs.
shp0ngle 4y ago
And Firefox is going all the way back to Netscape Navigator...

jojobas 4y ago

[flagged]