5 ms·
All I have to do is stumble upon a heated 100+ post discussion on the implementation details of an arcane feature of CSS to understand how mammoth an undertakin
by mjrpes 2y ago
All I have to do is stumble upon a heated 100+ post discussion on the implementation details of an arcane feature of CSS to understand how mammoth an undertaking it must be to develop a fully compatible browser engine.
- diggan 2y ago> develop a fully compatible browser engine Do we need more "fully compatible" engines? I could imagine there are use cases for browser engines that work with just parts of the specification, particularly the most common ones used in the wild.
- pests 2y agoJust as a data point, the YouTube app on most TVs and devices is a stripped down browser only supporting exactly the HTML/CSS/JS needed to run the big picture client. By tighter integration with the final product, the browser can provide specialized elements or APIs to simplify the actual application code. I think it's used a few other places as well.
- madeofpalk 2y agoMost smart tv apps are just web apps. YouTube isn’t particularly unique in that regard. Even the old pre-tvOS Apple TV apps were kinda web apps - XML and JavaScript delivered over HTTP
- pests 2y agoI do agree TV apps are mostly web apps, but most of them did not run in a browser that was specifically designed for that single app.
- roywashere 2y agoGoogle tried a browser that only supported <div> and limited CSS for embedded purposes and it went nowhere
- airstrike 2y agoThat just means that specific subset of features wasn't lucky enough to make it compelling at that particular point in time for the markets it meant to address. Change any of those variables and you may have a winning proposition.