Talk:WebCore

Applications based on...

I'm not sure "based on" is the right term here. "Based on" means "founded on," which seems a misue of the term here. Would anyone object to renaming the section to Applications using WebCore? --Steven Fisher 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. BTW Do we know for sure that the applications listed here use WebCore as opposed to WebKit? AlistairMcMillan 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we do. I was thinking of adding a note to the end of the paragraph saying something to the effect of "In addition to these applications, other applications use WebCore indirectly by using WebKit." WebKit would be a link, even though it would be the second WebKit link in the article. Not a big deal. I hesitated to do this yesterday, though, because for some reason I was in a "fret over wording" mode. I think I'll just take a swing at it now, and if people don't like it they can edit it. Steven Fisher 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "...other applications use WebCore as part of WebKit."? AlistairMcMillan 16:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Done. Steven Fisher 17:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with WebKit article

I suggest merging most of the content in this article with WebKit. WebCore is an implementation detail of WebKit, and since the launch of the WebKit Open Source project the rendering engine is almost universally referred to as WebKit. This is somewhat confusing since WebKit is both a specific piece of code that compiles to WebKit.framework, and the umbrella name for the WebKit engine as a whole, including WebCore. Also, all of the applications listed here as "using WebCore" actually use WebKit - none of them uses WebCore directly as far as I know. User:MaciejStachowiak.

Sounds good to me. Merge away! – Mipadi 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose at this point. Omniweb is WebCore, not WebKit. I think Help Viewer is as well. How many others do you think are here for the right reasons? --Steven Fisher 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not the case. Current versions of OmniWeb use WebKit, you can find a citation here: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/8666>. This includes a link back to Omni's own site. Help Viewer has never linked WebCore directly, nor has any other Apple application. You can verify this by running "otool -L /System/Library/CoreServices/Help\ Viewer.app/Contents/MacOS/Help\ Viewer" at a Mac OS X command prompt. Because WebKit is an umbrella framework that includes WebCore, and headers are not installed on a normal system, it is not possible for an app to link against it directly without embedding its own copy. OmniWeb did this for a while, but they have stopped and I do not believe anyone else has ever done so. Confusion about these kinds of issues is the reason I'd like the lists merged. (Incidentally, I work on the team at Apple that develops WebKit - I do not know if this helps or hinders my credibility, but I thought I should mention it). --MaciejStachowiak 15:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed this again, see the WebKit talk page. While the WebCore article is longer than the other subprojects, I believe it would be better merged. Hertzsprung 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support merger. Some thigns might be webcore, and not webkit, but that doesn't justify seperating the articles. A mere mention of the exceptions should be fine. If not we don't merge then we have to pull the javascript stuff out of the webkit article. Mathiastck (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated User:AlistairMcMillan for merging WebCore into the WebKit article. QQ (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swift browser for Windows

Swift_(web_browser) has its own Wiki page and uses Webcore. It should probably be listed in this article and Comparison_of_layout_engines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It uses WebKit. AlistairMcMillan 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]