Skip to main content

Talk:GNOME Web

Talk:GNOME Web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleGNOME Web has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Merge process[edit]

Added my Features section. Pre-existing Bookmarks and Epiphany-extensions are left intact for now (though I shifted heading level). I believe a further discussion will be necessary here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added Fork of Galeon, Default GNOME web browser and Release history. Fork of Galeon was mentioned in the article before, but I added more details. I've entirely omitted my Layout engine switch section, as it is covered in more detail in the original. Now many things in Development needs sorting, and I would kindly ask Ahunt to help me with that, as I promised to keep things intact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have converted my references from dts they used to YYYY-MM-DD, as it is currently the default in article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty good so far. We are missing some refs and have some minor formatting errors, etc. I can tag/fix them but I want to make sure you are finished first, before I do anything, so let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I did pretty much all I could. While I have some issues with some parts of the text, I just don't want to mix them in here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well if you are done let me go over it and see how it looks. I should be able to get this done later on today! - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a few small editorial changes and added few tags where refs are missing. I'll let you have a look at that and see you you have any comments. Next I think we have to integrate the Fork of Galeon and Default GNOME web browser sections into the development section as they present parts of the same history twice. The resulting section can be sub-sectioned and even retitled "history" or "Development history" if you like. I think this can be done fairly easily, but I'll wait until you have a look at things now. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank You for Your editorial improvements!
  • Fork of Galeon and Default GNOME web browser sections are the parts of a common trend. I did split them to eventually insert some information about Epiphany's early development, but as now there's no such information, I don't mind them joined together.
  • Do You think I should provide references for WebKit features? They are covered in details in series of articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think it's necessary.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added references and removed duplicates I've found. I left a single citation needed in Epiphany-extensions, because I wanted to raise this question later — the list is outdated. I've made an up-to-date list in my version but I didn't replace this as for now I was supposed only to add. Can I replace it now, or should we update this list by some other means? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Default GNOME web browser heading. Do You think anything else is required to join them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That all looks good so far. What I was thinking is that the "Fork of Galeon" section is chronologically out of order in the history, so should be be moved up intio the history. Let me do that to show you want I mean and you can see how it looks. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Go on! I would like to see Your vision, but anyway I absolutely agree it belongs to the beginning of the development section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I should get to that this morning. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That is done, at least at a preliminary level. I have asked another editor who hasn't worked on the article before to take a look and see if it flows well, logic, copy edit, etc. I figure a third set of editing eyes would help improve things. She should be able to do that later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've split Development into three new subsections for major periods of history. I think this way the article looks better and the readers who look for some specific information can easier find the most interesting parts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw that - good idea, I think it improves readability! That other editor I invited to look the article over should be able to get to it today, too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I just had another run though the article fixed up a bit of formatting and such. I think we are "there". At least for now! I think overall the article looks pretty good. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove my draft, as it seems there's nothing useful there now. Could You please have a look, whether I missed something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we got it all! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Epiphany-extensions[edit]

I still want to replace the list in the section.

Pros: the current list reflects the state of the package of pre-WebKit era.

Cons: my table is completely WP:OR, I looked in my extension list and pasted. I could give a reference to the packing lists in some distributions, but extracting the extensions list will anyway need special knowledge (one must know that extension files' mask *.ephy-extension, which isn't completely evident, IMHO.

Disputable: my version is a table in "name-description" format, while the original list is a mere list.

So, I don't really know what to do. I've mailed epiphany's mailing list a request to update a list (it actually sounds nice then is summarised here) but that can only solve the problem of reference. I would ask everybody interested to comment on my proposal. This time I'm not going to blindly replace something without prior consensus. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that the Gnome Epiphany home webpages are so out of date is a problem. It seems that when Lopez took over that all updating was stopped, including the dev blog, which was useful information. Until we get some real refs there isn't much we can do except mark the existing extensions text to indicate what time period it represents. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The funniest thing here that we can't do that, as there is no proper information on the subject. I'm going to give a glance to epiphany-extensions changelog in GNOME's GIT and inspect the WayBack Machine's content, but these constitute what we call "thin ice". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So we have an archive of Epiphany Extensions page which remains the same at least since 2008-12-11 and NEWS file from git, which has a long list of added and removed extensions. The latter can be set as reference to the last paragraph before the list (right after :), but this IMHO still is a dubious way of referencing... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That should do it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm on a hunt by MrOllie, so I would better refrain from any contribution for a while, in order to prevent damage infliction on this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, the article is in pretty good shape right now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, this or even this link might do for verification. The last question is whether I should update the list or replace it with my table? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The table looks okay to use. I would suggest if both those refs are up to date then cite them both! You can never have too many refs in case one goes dead in the future! - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Done it. I also renamed and extended the section as I found links to currently available third party extensions. I'll extend it more later, as time allows. Revert me if I'm wrong. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple of minor spelling errors, fixed. It will be great when Epiphany gets spell-checking! - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I was in a hurry, and I have a mixture of languages, as I speak one language home, two other languages outdoors and write regularly in fourth. BTW, Epiphany has spell checking. I've just had to turn it off due to the bug with non-ascii encodings: eg. word слово gets "corrected" to слово. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, that is why we collaborate on articles, we catch each other's mistakes and build a better encyclopedia that way. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Added refs to third-party extensions (live and defunct). Also added a statement about find-as-you-type bookmarks access. I'm sure I've read about that somewhere, but I can't recall the source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gecko-based and minor versions[edit]

I'm not sure that we are not too much detail. As per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, only major versions should be covered in development section. Instead we have there:

  • Development versions:
  1. 1.7.2
  2. 1.7.3
  3. 1.7.4
  4. 1.7.5
  5. 1.7.6
  6. 1.9.1
  7. 1.9.2
  8. 1.9.3.1
  9. 1.9.5
  10. 1.9.6
  11. 1.9.7
  12. 1.9.8
  13. 2.15
  14. 2.19.2
  15. 2.25
  • Stable minor versions:
  1. 1.8.1 (misspelled as 1.81)
  2. 1.8.2
  3. 1.8.3
  4. 2.16.3 (this one might be actually notable enough)
  5. 2.20.2 (probably should get attributed as 2.20?)
  6. 2.26.3

We already have all dates in the table. We could use relative dates here to emphasise the timeframes if needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favour of cutting it down to the versions that introduced notable changes or features. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we should explain the most notable changes here. My list:
  • Simplified location bar (?) (1.8)
  • XULRunner (2.14)
  • NetworkManager (2.14)
  • Multiple backends (2.20)
Any ammendments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed I also cleaned up WebKit-based section, added some new refs and converted "ANNOUNCEMENT" ref to cite mailing list format. It needs some copyediting, and I'm still in doubt about clarity of transition process. May be we should be more explicit about the co-existence of GECKO and WebKit backends in versions 2.20-2.26, abstraction layer and difficulties in its maintaining? As always, feel free to revert me if You see any problems with my edit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks good, reduced some of the less important stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Article quality rating[edit]

I don't feel this article only deserves 'Start quality. May be we should request some higher rating? Which? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea, I really don't pay a lot of attention to ratings. I leave them for others. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for GA. Not sure whether it will make it, but anyway we'll have a feedback on what needs to be improved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
GA is a scary process, let's see what happens! - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that this article is barely literate. The prose is clearly written by a non-native English speaker. Oecology (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have carried out a copy edit. Are there any remaining areas that require addressing? - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Renamed[edit]

Since Epiphany has been renamed to (the rather presumptuous) new name "Web", should we move this article as well to Web (web browser)? - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it. For now I wrote that it was "renamed", though I'm not entirely sure that it is the case: probably this "rename" only happened within .desktop file. Anyway, I'd reserve my judgment on this issue until I get 3.4 update on my system. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The ref above seems pretty clear: "Epiphany, the GNOME web browser, has been renamed Web." but I have no problem with waiting until you can actually try it out! - 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
For reference-based move I would wait for some secondary source reviewing GNOME or Epiphany support this claim. Though GNOME's release notes have the statement, the developer's blog doesn't mention new name in the new version announcement, which may indicate that no actual name change happened. Or may indicate nothing. That is: the question is unclear yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was wrong: "Also, notice that we now brand ourselves as "Web" in all user visible strings." So I support the move. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Do you want to do the honours, then? - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done. Tomorrow afternoon (UTC) I'll walk through incoming links to make necessary changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears that I already fixed everything that doesn't need updating. I left some links to Epiphany (web browsers) when specific old versions were discussed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that searching for reviews of Epiphany Web will now be a complete nightmare... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true - how are we going to find reviews under "Web Browser"?! - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More than a year has passed since the Gnome announcement that Epiphany had been renamed and I am starting to wonder if the name really was changed or not. Let's look at the evidence. Other than the above announcement there is only:

  • Main Menu - About - "Web"

The following are places where it is still called Epiphany today:

The "main menu about" is really the only place where the name has actually been changed. It is interesting to note that some other Gnome applications don't have their real project names on the "main menu about" though. For instance, the Gnome PDF reader, Evince, on its "Help - about" says "Document Viewer" and Eye of GNOME is called "Image Viewer". My understanding was that this was for menu indexing, so that users wouldn't have to remember the name of the PDF reader and would just see"Document Viewer" on their menus instead.

I am really wondering whether Epiphany was really renamed to "Web" or not. It seems possible that it is still actually called "Epiphany" and the name "Web" is merely for simplified menu indexing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Raspberrian Os on my brand new Raspberry PI 2 uses "Ephiphany" 3.8.2 with webkit 2.4.1 as one of the 4 browsers. No mention is made of "Web" It also currently will not correctly work with ssh @ Calomel.org I hope this helps. Glennndavis (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GNOME Web. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Userbox[edit]

For editors who use GNOME Web, there is a general userbox now that can put on their user pages:

Wikitext userbox where used
{{Template:User GNOME Web}}
GNOME Web logo--2018.svgThis user contributes using the GNOME Web, a Linux web browser.
 linked pages

its namespace is based on Wikipedia:Userboxes#Which_namespace?

see also: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Browsers#GNOME_Web

Editor-1 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Enlarged fonts in the main picture[edit]

@Editor-1:, I see you wanted to set as page's main picture a screenshot of epiphany with enlarged fonts.

Large fonts are intended for visually impaired people and I can't remember to have ever seen any browser on Wikipedia "default" depicted with accessibility options enabled. This is because large fonts break proportions and make programs "ugly".

If you wanted to show a screenshot with sizes more appropriate for a thumbnail, I think you should instead set an high DPI "UI Scale", which enlarges all the elements of the interface, and not just the fonts.

If you believe we should need an external opinion, I would agree in linking this section on the Web developer mailing list.

Ogoorcs (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

more representative screenshot
I have looked at both these screenshots being edit-warred about and think that both need replacing with a better one, more generic, less customized for font scaling, form factor and other changes to the interface. The tablet shot is not typical, either, it should use a non-customized desktop screenshot, showing at least two tabs, like the one at right. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ahunt: I agree with you and I think your screenshot is better suited to be the main picture at the moment, but I liked Editor-1's idea to pick a screenshot whose elements could be distinguishable even when browsing Wikipedia from a mobile device; that's why I posted a 2x scale version of the screenshot (which actually depicts an uncustomized default GNOME setup on an high density screen, apart from indicators, which I forgot to disable).
Also because I believe having a single code base covering different form factors is an unique feature worth mentioning in the correspondent page section and inserting a gallery-like widget around there (instead of the single 'phone' screenshot I added) to show how it renders on the three form factors would be the perfect compromise.
Ogoorcs (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ogoorcs: Hello, you was right, large fonts and customized WikiPedia interface were ugly and unsuitable, so I did update that file again, at the moment, I think taking its screenshot with WikiPedia is a bad idea and unnecessary, because if someone is seeing that screen-shot in the WP, that person does not need to see the WP artikel in the screenshot again, I think its official website is more beautiful and useful.

@Ahunt: Thank you but NO, your screen-shot is really ugly, simple, with useless white space around it, it also does not show most/all the software features like ("it has scrollbar--menu is opened--download icon--tab scroll button (see the under < button)").

I think current screen-shot is really great and beautiful, don't change it without explanation first.--Editor-1 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The updated version of the current one is a little bit better. It can probably suffice until the next version comes out and we get a new screenshot of it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Version 3.34 is out already (in many formats). Can't see why we can't have a representative updated screenshot.Ogoorcs (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
GNOME Web 3.34 with default GNOME appearance (Archlinux, 28 Sept. 2019)
Present main picture of GNOME Shell Wikipedia page (28 Sept. 2019)
GNOME 3.34 default font and window controls layout
@Editor-1: I see your point, but unfortunately in this case it is not valid; the reasons are:
- as Ahunt said, the screenshot should be taken with default settings (give me good faith here);
- application developers explicitly chose to adhere to GNOME Human Interface Guidelines, which at the present tell us that the default font for GNOME applications is Cantarell[1] at size 10 or 11; I can clearly see that in your new screenshot you are using Sans font in the 14-16 size range;
- many GNOME developers published just some months ago a manifesto explicitly asking software distributors to stop changing their applications appearance, because they are not designed, they say, to be used with settings different from the one they chose (i.e. they are ugly); so basically we would do just the opposite of what the Web developers asked communities.
I think you can agree that developer word is the last word here.
Ogoorcs (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Our general consensus on software screenshots has been to use ones that are as non-customized as possible to show what it installs like "out-of-the-box" and to use light and neutral GTK/Qt themes as well. The lede screenshot is supposed to show the reader a recent version of the software in as unmodified state as possible, so it is very close to what they would see if they read the article and then went and sudo apt installed it right away. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
So here it is a screenshot with the same content as it was before the beginning of this discussion and default GNOME 3.34 appearance, by which I mean the one that is shared by GNOME apps binary distributions (gnome-nightly), Archlinux, Debian, Ubuntu (with gnome-vanilla installed), Fedora and Flathub runtimes.
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"which at the present tell us that the default font for GNOME applications is Adwaita"

There is no mention of "Adwaita" in the link, it says "In GNOME 3, the default font is Cantarell".

that manifesto is about software distributors/Linux distros, although I can understand it can be extended to the GNOME screenshots, specially on WikiPedia, but my image was in default theme just its dark variant (Adwaita-dark).

I have taken another sreen-shot and changed it to the default light theme because curent dark theme (GTK 3.24.8) has some minor problems, it also has no scrollbar, so the blue bar in the website is shown complete, also other tabs have better titles.

This is the last screen-shot I did take for v3.32, just wait 1 month, Ubuntu and Fedora will release their next version and I will switch to Fedora and will take one screen-shot with default settings.Editor-1 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be great if we can get a fresh screenshot when Ubuntu 19.10 comes out! right now it looks like it will be 3.34.0. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You can install upstream stable GNOME 3.34 apps on any */Linux with GNOME Nightly flatpaks[2].
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Editor-1: it clearly was a typo, I know the difference between Adwaita (gtk theme, icon theme) and Cantarell because I started this. Months ago I even sistematically wrote "Adwaita" instead of "Cantarell" in glade files. :-)
Your latest screenshot uses Ubuntu typeface. Check with Tweaks that you are using the latest settings. Check your results against shell page main picture.
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think no one really can't reconize what font is used in my and your screenshot unless some developers like you! and both fonts are very similar. Just wait 3 week and I will add an excellent screen-shot with default settings. OK?--Editor-1 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir, your argument is invalid: any person interested in application design and design in general should be able to tell you those fonts are really different. If those are not among your main interests, just do not focus on application screenshots, or just stop pretending to know better of the application designers.
I do not see any need to wait three weeks: your screenshot three weeks from now would be the same as mine, if you will use GNOME defaults.
If you do not know how to upgrade to the present stable release, this is no reason to waste others' work because in three weeks you will be able to make it useless.
If you think you will make an even better screenshot, you have the right to do it whenever you want, but you are not entitled to put others' people valid work on hold.
Now I am gonna set the updated screenshot. (Apparently, other people already did it.)
Ogoorcs (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Apparently, other people already did it."

It was not other people! it was me! (Special:MobileDiff/918369917).--Editor-1 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Errata corrige
  2. ^ https://askubuntu.com/questions/1124841/update-gnome-to-latest-3-32-on-ubuntu-18-04-without-upgrading-ubuntu/1176826#1176826

Wayland support for Epiphany comes from GTK and WebkitGTK Wayland support[edit]

@Editor-1:, you said: Reverted good faith edits by Ogoorcs: Wayland, GTK, GNOME, are developed primary for Linux, read: Wayland_(display_server_protocol)#Weston--"Epiphany Wayland support comes from the GTK project" WRONG! its come from Linux kernel drivers, GNOME, and Mutter (software)--GTK support is always on the edge, not limited to v3--wrong linking and phrasing.

The fact that GTK are actually developed primarly for GNU/Linux does not imply that it is not a cross-platform toolkit anymore. GTK developers still release their code for Windows and Mac OS and you can run most GTK applications on Windows and Mac, too.

Not being dependent on any os-specific library in fact, you are able to actually build Epiphany even on Windows.

The fact that no one has packaged it yet just does mean that probably no one is interested in doing it (and mantaining it), not that it can run only on GNU/Linux, specially if no changes to the code are needed to run it elsewhere.

To a limited extent the same applies to Wayland (I have seen it run only on unix-like devices).

To the extend of my knowledge, no kernel developers were directly involved in adding Wayland support to WebkitGTK nor GTK.

You can run Epiphany on any Wayland compositor (if Epiphany dependencies are installed) and you can because the toolkit it is written for (GTK3) and the rendering engine it uses (WebkitGTK) support Wayland protocol.

It could be exact to say that Wayland support were added by GNOME developers, by the way, but I think it could be obvious if it is. In any case the fact that Weston is linux-only does not mean Wayland is linux-only, and in fact you build it flawlessly on *BSDs without any apparent changes. The fact that the "main developers" will not solve bugs encountered on unsupported systems, but they would gladly accept patches that enhance portability in most cases.

In any case I just said that Wayland supports comes from the fact that GTK (3 and 3.9x) supports Wayland through their specialized backend.

I also removed the wrong assumption that it is something special that Epiphany can be run on GTK latest version, because you can run any GTK3 program on any newer version of the 3.x branch; that is why it is a stable branch.

On the contrary, you can run epiphany against most newer GTK3 releases (I believe you can build even against 3.18 branch) and in most cases you will just build against whatever version your system has installed in the default paths.

So you can have the latest version of Epiphany on Ubuntu 16.04, running it with the GTK and the rendering engine that are installed on that system.

Please, if you find points that you think we need to discuss just do not undo the changes entirely because, as indicated in the log, they contain boring to re-do syntax and source corrections.

Notes[edit]

You wrote

GTK support is always on the edge, not limited to v3

That was not what I meant to say; I wrote (with explaining parenthesis if you are not a native english-speaker):

The features of Web include x and y, as (much as) support for edge technologies like Wayland (which feature-wise it is still not on par with X.org on GNOME, just search on the issue lists), (which is indirectly) supported through GTK version 3, (meaning that because wayland support had been added to gtk, every gtk application had it since then), multimedia support using GStreamer, [...]

Ogoorcs (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNOME_Web&oldid=919041865"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more