Google planning new Chrome browser based on WebKit

[AppleInsider]

A Google blogger has published an illustrated document outlining Google Chrome, a new web browser project based on Apple's WebKit open source rendering engine.

The blogger says Google mailed out a description of the new project's features in the form of a 38-page comic book, illustrated by artist Scott McCloud of Understanding Comics and distributed under a Creative Commons license.

The comic book portrays Google engineers highlighting stability, speed, security, and simplicity as key aspects of the project, which will serve not only as a new browser but a foundation for a new generation of JavaScript thick 'web client server' apps following the same model as Apple's MobileMe apps built upon the SproutCore framework, as well as the HTML 5 advancements going into Safari 4 to make it suitable for a new class of sophisticated web applications.

Most of Google's existing products are web-base applications. A Google browser has been long rumored, in part to keep Microsoft from controlling all access to the browser platform across Windows PCs. Google has been financing Mozilla Firefox development with the same intention.

While the www.google.com/chrome URL is referenced in the report as not being valid yet, Google has already released developer tools for Gears, an effort to improve web applications by providing features missing in today's browsers, including a database engine and support for local storage and offline applications. Chrome is simply, well, the chrome on the gears.

Chrome and Webkit

The report says the new Chrome browser will combine Apple's Webkit, Google's Gears, and a new JavaScript virtual machine called V8, intended to dramatically speed up the performance of JavaScript code, particularly the code used in building significant web apps. The document outlines that Google's Chrome team selected Webkit for the same reason Android developers did: it's fast, simple, uses memory efficiently, and "it was easy for new browser developers to learn to make the code base work."

However, rather than speeding up JavaScript parsing as Apple and Mozilla are doing in their efforts to build faster JavaScript interpreters, Google's V8 compiles JavaScript into native source code. It also allows for better garbage collection of expired memory and dynamic optimization based on hidden class transitions. The company will offer V8 as an open source component that other browsers can adopt as well.

This puts the Chrome project on the same page as Apple's forthcoming Safari 4, which similarly intends to speed JavaScript (although in different ways) and push features of HTML 5 to give web apps standardized access to database tools, local storage options, and the ability to work offline when the network isn't present. Conversely, Google's use of the Webkit rendering engine will also help popularize Apple's efforts to spread its open new CSS features for adding effects such as reflections, gradients and new masking capabilities.

Chrome user interface

By delivering its own browser front end, Google can focus on differentiated user interface features. The illustrated report depicts a browser with tabs on top of the window rather than inline, a violation of both Mac and Windows user interface guidelines. Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft have all taken similar exceptions to established guidelines in order to make their apps stand out. In Google's case, the top tabs are intended to make it easier and more obvious how to detach tabs to create freestanding windows.



A separate example cited in the report is a browser address bar with auto completion called "omnibox,' designed to respond to natural language search words that match previously visited pages, rather than force the user to enter semantically correct URLs.

Another user interface idea presented in the illustrated guide is Chrome's default page, which shows the user thumbnails of sites they have previously visited or bookmarked and recent searches (below), a feature similar to one in the Opera browser.



Like Safari's Private Browsing introduced in 2005's Tiger and Internet Explorer 8's new InPrivate mode, Google's Chrome will support 'incognito' windows and tabs where the browser won't save any history, cookies, or leave other private tracks. And similar to an upcoming feature in Safari 4, Chrome will be able to launch web applications as a freestanding desktop app lacking the usual browser address and tool bars.

Targeting responsiveness and bloat

In addition to visual enhancements of the user interface, Google is also attacking the inherently single-threaded model of browsers, which results in delays while the browser waits for a JavaScript to finish executing. Rather than making the browser multithreaded, the report depicts the new browser using a multi-process design that runs each browser tab as its own process.



That design would chow down more memory initially, but provide much better response time and independence between web pages and applications loaded at once. Closing a tab would also immediately release its memory allocation, rather than resulting in a fragmented allocation that affects the entire browser.

The document cites Google engineer Brett Wilson as explaining, "so as you browse, we're creating and destroying processes all the time. If there's a crazy memory leak it won't affect you for that long because you'll probably close the tab at some point and get that memory back."

Chrome and web plugins

Each tab is also sandboxed for security, although any web plugins, such as Adobe Flash or Microsoft Silverlight, will not respect this security model by design, because the existing web plugin model automatically gives them privileges on the same level or higher than the browser.

The document notes that "with some small changes on the part of plugin makers, we can get them to run at a lower privilege which would be much much safer." It also notes that Chrome will present each plugin in the browser's task manager so users are aware of which plugins are hogging available RAM, "placing blame where blame belongs," a shot clearly fired toward fat third-party plugins.

While the document carefully avoided any mention of Flash, it did depict the challenge of isolating video within YouTube, a task that is built on top of the Flash player plugin.



Popups, malware, and bugs

Rather than allowing JavaScript to popup ads from any web page in the background or in the user's face, Chrome will attach JavaScript notices to the browser window and tab from which they originated.

The new browser will also get updated info on malware sites to help rapidly warn users of phishing attacks that have been discovered (phishing schemes usually get taken down with a day or a few days). Google will also be exposing this system as a public API other browsers can use.

In order to track down bugs and problems with various web sites, the document outlined Google's ability to automate testing of new builds against tens of thousands of websites within minutes. It also notes that Google's own Page Rank information will be used to direct testing toward the popular sites people actually use regularly.

Wide open

By offering Chrome, Gears, V8 and other components as open source, Google hopes to bring all web browsers up to modern standards capable of running the kinds of web apps the company is delivering now and laying a foundation for a future of even more sophisticated apps that run on the web platform using interoperable standards anyone can implement.

Google's Chrome will give a huge push behind the efforts of Firefox, Opera, and Safari to create a more open, interoperable web enabled to run a sophisticated new generation of web client server apps.

The entire comic book is available at Google on Google Chrome comic book

[SpamSandwich]

Outstanding mini-report! Very exciting that Google is doing this. Anything that forces innovation and creativity in web browsing and net-enabled interfaces is cool with me.

[yama]

Did they have to use a comic book as the format to present this? It feels a bit, well, tacky somehow.

Either way, I hope does a better job of making this feel like a native Mac app than Firefox.

Actually, I'm somewhat surprised there's no search bar in the toolbar of those windows. What would be interesting would be if the search bar *replaces* the URL bar when it's empty. Seems to me that more and more people are googling for sites rather than entering URLs these days. Why not capitalise on that?

Here's looking forward to a couple of years of Chrome Beta!

[rauschma]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Google's V8 compiles JavaScript into native source code

Native source code is a bit of an oxymoron. I think you meant native code (which is short for "native machine code").

[8CoreWhore]

Cool... Webkit is fast.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

This looks really cool. I guess we'll get to experience it first-hand soon!

As for wondering why this was placed in a comic, how many people would have read it otherwise?

[jawporta]

I like how they thought of porn sites and will let you go into private mode. The last thing I need it all of my so call favorite sites on my home page.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by yama

Did they have to use a comic book as the format to present this? It feels a bit, well, tacky somehow.

After seeing years of Apple's kindergarten hand sketched patten submittals, I thought they were ok to look at.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by jawporta

I like how they thought of porn sites and will let you go into private mode. The last thing I need it all of my so call favorite sites on my home page.

You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?

I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.

It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Booga

It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people.

It might be a waste for Google but it will definitely un-alienate Safari users.

[andreslucero]

The comic book layout helped explain some complex ideas visually (e.g. diagrams of tabs-as-processes) and gave you a sense of what the browser would look like without actually showing screenshots. Maybe not entirely necessary, but at least interesting.

Google would be crazy NOT to release a browser at some point, since it's their customers' primary way to access the company's services. Webkit gives Google a solid rendering engine to build on, but the browser app itself will be a lot different than Safari. (Not to mention that Safari is fine on OS X, but lousy on Windows and non-existent on Linux.)

[andreslucero]

Originally Posted by yama

Actually, I'm somewhat surprised there's no search bar in the toolbar of those windows. What would be interesting would be if the search bar *replaces* the URL bar when it's empty. Seems to me that more and more people are googling for sites rather than entering URLs these days. Why not capitalise on that?

It looks like the location bar and search bar are one and the same; like the Awesome Bar in Firefox 3, URLs will auto-complete from bookmarks/history, and search terms will appear there as well (think Inquisitor or Google Suggest).

[felipetv]

Originally Posted by Booga

You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?

I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.

It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.

There are a lot of differences to be noticed, such as the omnibox, the new default window, the hability to treat each tab as a different process... and also I guess the Javascript engine is not exactly the same in both browsers, although I don't really know which one is better ...

And even if it was the same, I guess Google will have a greater power than Apple when trying to get a browser running in PCs. I look forward to the death of Internet Explorer, and the domination of standards-compliant browsers!!...

And it will probably make a lot more websites Safari-compatible, with the use of Webkit

[flemsha]

Seems like a waste to me. Google is already the default search on safari and firefox, so Google already have all that revenue coming in. Still maybe googles brand name will help propel the non-ie browser market on windows, increase the impetus for people to develop sites with webkit in mind and make making pages which only support the ie way totally unjustifiable.

Alternatively the non-ie web browser market could end up fractured and unable to provide a cohesive front to face ie in much the same way as desktop Linux is. <puts on flame proof suit>

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by Booga

You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?

I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.

It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.

I could be wrong what with all the back and forth and all the times they have changed their minds ... but has not the Mozilla dudes finally settled on *not* using WebKit? If that's the case, then the reason for this browser is the same as the reason for all Google's stuff which is the promotion of open web standards. Makes sense to me.

All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit. If FireFox is still going to do that, then this development makes no sense at all, but as long as they don't, someone has to twist their arm for the good of the web.

[flemsha]

It would be great if Webkit became the new open standard for browsing the web. But on market share gecko wins out.

[Mac-sochist]

I think this will be a good thing overall. Anything that takes marketshare away from IE and has more and more people surfing the web with standards-compliant browsers will surely speed the day when the few remaining websites that are IE-only will have to join the 21st century.

I'm very happy that it's Webkit-based, as well. I can only assume that the Gecko rendering engine is what's wrong with Firefox; maybe some of the people who don't like Safari for some inexplicable reason, and have switched to Firefox will try it and see how incredibly, horripilatingly s...l...o...w Firefox is by comparison, and how poorly it scrolls (to name just two of its many, many annoyances.) I look forward to a Webkit majority in the not-too-distant future!

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by felipetv

And it will probably make a lot more websites Safari-compatible, with the use of Webkit

Oh yeah! That is real benefit I see here, but only in speeding up the process. For Augus 2008 W3 Schools registered the combined IE5, 6 and 7 as having a combined 50.6% of the browser marketshare, with Mozilla having 44.2%, MS is down 1.4% while Mozilla up 1.1% from the previous month. These stats don't represent the US or World average, but they do show general trend.

That trend is further revealed now that IE8 will be standards compliant by default—that wasn't MS' original intention, they wanted to make it a switch that developers put in their sites—and they are following more standards. They aren't close to Gecko, WebKit and Presto(Opera)'s layout engine, but it's a move in the right direction.

• http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

WebKit has Safari, Android, Google Chrome, and now RiM's BB. Nokia is going with FF. I don't know how they count devices but with the iPhone, Android and the Blackberry there are going to be a lot of WebKit-based browsers out their.

Originally Posted by flemsha

Seems like a waste to me. Google is already the default search on safari and firefox, so Google already have all that revenue coming in.

They do, but outside of potential contractual agreements they don't have to use Google, but I believe that Mozilla makes it's money from the Google search bar so I doubt that it's not in jeopardy on Safari and FF.

What I think is most likely here is Cringely's long ago prediction that Google will be creating simple internet capable devices. Not a big deal to us, but getting the rest of the world on the internet with these cheap devices would be a huge, long term financial draw for them. Or Google could be thinking that their browser would be a great portal to the internet for integrated home appliances or some sort of public terminal that have a built-in browser for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by flemsha

It would be great if Webkit became the new open standard for browsing the web. But on market share gecko wins out.

Open Standards are the open standard. WebKit, Gecko and Presto engines abide by them. That is all that matters, from there you choose the engine and UI that works best for you.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Layout_engines

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I could be wrong what with all the back and forth and all the times they have changed their minds ... but has not the Mozilla dudes finally settled on *not* using WebKit?

I wasn't aware that they ever considered it. WebKit may technically beat out Gecko in most tests and be slightly more standards compliant, but they have a top quality browser.

All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit. If FireFox is still going to do that, then this development makes no sense at all, but as long as they don't, someone has to twist their arm for the good of the web.

I'm not sure why you think they should drop all that R&D to jump to WebKit. The competition between the two is great. FF did a lot pull people from IE, but Safari and Opera's presence are keeping them resting on their laurels.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Very exciting that Google is doing this. Anything that forces innovation and creativity in web browsing and net-enabled interfaces is cool with me.

I agree.

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

I think this will be a good thing overall. Anything that takes marketshare away from IE and has more and more people surfing the web with standards-compliant browsers will surely speed the day when the few remaining websites that are IE-only will have to join the 21st century.

I'm very happy that it's Webkit-based, as well. I can only assume that the Gecko rendering engine is what's wrong with Firefox; maybe some of the people who don't like Safari for some inexplicable reason, and have switched to Firefox will try it and see how incredibly, horripilatingly s...l...o...w Firefox is by comparison, and how poorly it scrolls (to name just two of its many, many annoyances.) I look forward to a Webkit majority in the not-too-distant future!

I certainly agree with the opinion that anything that takes away marketshare from internet explorer is good, as is anything that works to enhance the standards-compliant web browser experience. I don't agree at all with your characterization of Firefox, however, I have to admit that I'm currently on a Windows XP machine, so the OSX Firefox experience may be very different.

I think it's great that Google is making all these new components available as open source to be integrated into other browsers and applications, but I don't understand why Google is actually making their own browser implementation. They already heavily support Firefox, as does a huge part of the web community (in addition to Opera and Safari), so why would they want to compete with them for marketshare? IMHO, they should have just created these new libraries and components to be added into the next version of Firefox. Perhaps that will happen anyways, obviously with the exception of WebKit, and that would be good to see. I just hope a lot of people don't abandon Firefox for google's browser just as Firefox is starting to get a great hold on the browser market. Although a diversity of standards-compliant browsers is a good thing and puts pressure on Microsoft to fully comply with the open standards specs, I don't think diluting firefox's marketshare is a good idea. Remember, most of their money comes from Google searches in the browser, and it very important Mozilla continues to have decent funding for their projects. Also, It will make Internet explorer appear more dominant if all the other browsers in the market have a single-digit marketshare, even if they all added up to more than IE's share.

Anyways, it's good to see more progress. As a developer, it will be great to count on some of the new features being natively installed in new browsers e.g. Google Gears.

[flemsha]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Oh yeah! That is real benefit I see here, but only in speeding up the process. For Augus 2008 W3 Schools registered the combined IE5, 6 and 7 as having a combined 50.6% of the browser marketshare, with Mozilla having 44.2%, MS is down 1.4% while Mozilla up 1.1% from the previous month. These stats don't represent the US or World average, but they do show general trend.

That trend is further revealed now that IE8 will be standards compliant by default—that wasn't MS' original intention, they wanted to make it a switch that developers put in their sites—and they are following more standards. They aren't close to Gecko, WebKit and Presto(Opera)'s layout engine, but it's a move in the right direction.

• http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

WebKit has Safari, Android, Google Chrome, and now RiM's BB. Nokia is going with FF. I don't know how they count devices but with the iPhone, Android and the Blackberry there are going to be a lot of WebKit-based browsers out their.


They do, but outside of potential contractual agreements they don't have to use Google, but I believe that Mozilla makes it's money from the Google search bar so I doubt that it's not in jeopardy on Safari and FF.

What I think is most likely here is Cringely's long ago prediction that Google will be creating simple internet capable devices. Not a big deal to us, but getting the rest of the world on the internet with these cheap devices would be a huge, long term financial draw for them. Or Google could be thinking that their browser would be a great portal to the internet for integrated home appliances or some sort of public terminal that have a built-in browser for whatever reason.


Open Standards are the open standard. WebKit, Gecko and Presto engines abide by them. That is all that matters, from there you choose the engine and UI that works best for you.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Layout_engines

I wasn't aware that they ever considered it. WebKit may technically beat out Gecko in most tests and be slightly more standards compliant, but they have a top quality browser.


I'm not sure why you think they should drop all that R&D to jump to WebKit. The competition between the two is great. FF did a lot pull people from IE, but Safari and Opera's presence are keeping them resting on their laurels.

Imagine that an Internet where you browse with the browser of your choice and everything just works. Doesn't matter if you are using Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE or Chrome (or anything else for that matter), and whether it is on Windows, OSX, Linux, Symbian or whatever your computer or device uses. I vote Outlook web access to get the first standards compliant makeover.

Who broke the Internet again?

[ksec]

Why are they not going with SquirrelFish but create yet another javascript engine V8?
Although it is producing Native Code sounds much like the Tracemonkey in Mozilla.

Since they are all open source project, why Google just not help to combine v8 and SquirrelFish together and stop reinventing the wheel.

And WebKit will definately need Google's imput to help drive it faster, better, more standard compliant.

[wheelhot]

Cool, another big company using WebKit, take that IE. Some people dont want to use Safari cause well, they are anti-Apple, but who is an anti-Google or both? I dont think so, I do hope more users will realize that IE is the worst browser in the planet and its time for a change, like Obama's campaign slogan.

The age of WebKit and Gecko has arrived, the time of Trident has ended .

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Booga

It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.

Alienate people... how? Must a business have only one singular focus? Do you see no potential in how this might support their other businesses?

Originally Posted by Mac-sochist

I'm very happy that it's Webkit-based, as well. I can only assume that the Gecko rendering engine is what's wrong with Firefox; maybe some of the people who don't like Safari for some inexplicable reason, and have switched to Firefox will try it and see how incredibly, horripilatingly s...l...o...w Firefox is by comparison, and how poorly it scrolls (to name just two of its many, many annoyances.) I look forward to a Webkit majority in the not-too-distant future!

With web browsers, YMMV. I have not had your experience at all. I like Firefox for quick & easy plug-ins, no spelunking file systems to install and remove.

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I could be wrong what with all the back and forth and all the times they have changed their minds ... but has not the Mozilla dudes finally settled on *not* using WebKit? If that's the case, then the reason for this browser is the same as the reason for all Google's stuff which is the promotion of open web standards. Makes sense to me.

All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit. If FireFox is still going to do that, then this development makes no sense at all, but as long as they don't, someone has to twist their arm for the good of the web.

You should know from history of biology and technology, monocultures are BAD. It's bad enough that it's still practiced in both of those fields, there's no reason to advocate moving towards one. Everything using the same core engine? That's just an invitation to trouble. If there's a zero day hack, what do you jump to until it's fixed?

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by Booga

You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?

I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.

Then this comic book was clearly too technically complicated for your understanding.

Originally Posted by Booga

It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.

Google Chrome = Google OS

Google is building Chrome for the same reason Apple built Safari.
Before Safari Microsoft controlled the internet on Macs.
Despite Mozilla's attempts, Microsoft still dominates the internet and has been holding it back.
Google is attempting to use it's muscle to dethrone Internet Explorer and force web standards to become standard.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

...All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit...

You can have any flavor as long as it is vanilla.

Web standards are "standards" how you implement them is up to you.
All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should meet web standards.
It doesn't matter what rendering engine they use as long we always get the same end result.

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by flemsha

It would be great if Webkit became the new open standard for browsing the web. But on market share gecko wins out.

I don't think you understand the concept of "open web standards". The whole idea behind an "open standard" is that the specifications of that standard are widely and freely available to all of the different competing parties to ensure universal interoperability, while at the same time allowing independent implementations of said standard. Thus, if all the different rendering engine implementations (Webkit, Gecko, etc) adhere to the standard (HTML 5.0) correctly, then any given webpage will look and behave exactly the same regardless of the browser used.

Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.

Originally Posted by ksec

Why are they not going with SquirrelFish but create yet another javascript engine V8?
Although it is producing Native Code sounds much like the Tracemonkey in Mozilla.
Since they are all open source project, why Google just not help to combine v8 and SquirrelFish together and stop reinventing the wheel. And WebKit will definately need Google's imput to help drive it faster, better, more standard compliant.

Well, as I spoke about above, it's much better to have competing forces that are able to evaluate different techniques and programming models to find the best one. And It's really not "re-inventing the wheel" since the ideas behind each project are somewhat unique. But I do agree that they could possibly collaborate and find a hybrid system that works even better than either of the individual projects.

Originally Posted by flemsha

Imagine that an Internet where you browse with the browser of your choice and everything just works. Doesn't matter if you are using Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE or Chrome (or anything else for that matter), and whether it is on Windows, OSX, Linux, Symbian or whatever your computer or device uses. I vote Outlook web access to get the first standards compliant makeover.

Who broke the Internet again?

I don't understand your point. Obviously what you are describing is great and what everyone is working towards in advocating open web standards. But if your comment is a reply to the post you quoted, I don't see the connection.

[iVlad]

I love how Google illustrates everything. The whole company seems so cartoony.

[Moukkis]

...I have been entirely enchanted by the second illustration's browser address...

It's just cracking me up...

[columbus]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Nokia is going with FF. I don't know how they count devices but with the iPhone, Android and the Blackberry there are going to be a lot of WebKit-based browsers out their.

You sure? What has changed? I'm pretty sure they were using webkit.

[wheelhot]

You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?

Erm no, Chrome will not use JIT, it will use their own JS Engine, the only similarities is it will have the functions that can be found in all modern browsers (IE 7 excluded). It will use the same rendering engine as Safari which is WebKit.

Its amazing how fast WebKit is growing (both computer and mobile) since the iPhone uses WebKit Mobile (I just made this name up ). Every smartphone company is now pushing to make a full-fledged web browser and their preferred rendering engine is WebKit. Sounds sweet to me.

Now if only Apple would be more serious into developing SproutCore and with the cooperation with Google (Im quite sure they can find a solution to make, SC, Gears and GWT to live together), then I will be very happy

[RichL]

Originally Posted by solipsism

WebKit has Safari, Android, Google Chrome, and now RiM's BB. Nokia is going with FF.

Actually, Nokia were the first company to put WebKit on a cell phone and their roadmap hasn't changed as far as I know.

[BB Sting]

[QUOTE=winterspan;1301223]Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.









So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry. Sometimes standards are a good thing.

[Slewis]

Null.

[knightlie]

Originally Posted by Booga

You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?

I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.

Then you obviously didn't read/understand the comic in it's entirety, as they explain very clearly what sets it apart from other browsers.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by BB Sting

So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry. Sometimes standards are a good thing.

Your analogy just doesn't connect here. Since we're in lame car analogy land, then consider it using the exact same engine and transmission, regardless of the vehicle type, use and size. Safari is flexible, but everybody using the same core engine is bad for reasons I went into maybe a dozen posts back.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by wheelhot

Erm no, Chrome will not use JIT, it will use their own JS Engine, the only similarities is it will have the functions that can be found in all modern browsers (IE 7 excluded).

JIT stands for Just In Time. It does not refer to a specific JavaScript engine; rather, it refers to a design choice for building such an engine.

Amorya

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by BB Sting

So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry. Sometimes standards are a good thing.

Your analogy is flawed.
The steering wheel is the User Interface of the car not the "rendering engine".

Cars have all kinds of engines combustion, electric, hybrid, steam, solar, etc...
But they all conform to the "road standard" of getting you from point A to point B in one piece.

Web browsers all have basically the same "steering wheel"...(URL bar, forward and back buttons) and yes that is a good thing.

[Booga]

Everyone who says this is to promote open web standards needs to read more carefully. This is to promote Google Gears, which is Google's competitor in the Flex/Silverlight/OpenLaszlo/etc "rich client" battle. It will essentially be divisive and make the web LESS interoperable.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by Booga

Everyone who says this is to promote open web standards needs to read more carefully. This is to promote Google Gears, which is Google's competitor in the Flex/Silverlight/OpenLaszlo/etc "rich client" battle. It will essentially be divisive and make the web LESS interoperable.

The whole point of Google Gears is to make it easy for developers to create web apps that work well in ALL BROWSERS THAT SUPPORT WEB STANDARDS.

Which web browsers doesn't Google Mail work well in?