[scrod]

>By restricting HTML5 Audio controls, and rendering engine speed, it prevents games and music web apps from being viable inside the browser.

It must be frustrating for the WebKit team when their engineering advancements are taken for granted and attributed to Chrome — the perceived bastion of web freedom — while they themselves are simultaneously criticized for assisting in a conspiracy against "the web" whenever they fail to make enough cutting-edge performance improvements.

[patrickaljord]

> It must be frustrating for the WebKit team when their engineering advancements are taken for granted and attributed to Chrome

The chrome team makes more commits than the Apple webkit team. I know number of commits don't mean much but the chrome team is mostly reponsible for adding websocket, the file api, web workers and more. Also don't forget webkit itself is based on KDE's KHTML.

[scrod]

> but the chrome team is mostly reponsible for adding websocket, the file api, web workers...

Oh, so these features are comparable in effort and scale to an entire web browser and HTML5-compliant rendering engine then?

By your logic, Chrome is essentially KHTML + HTML5-fanboy-features. I guess that must mean Apple has been shipping a 2002-era build of Konquerer with each copy of Mac OS X then, huh? Because clearly WebKit itself is so minimal in comparison to the rest of Chrome as to be positively technologically inconsequential.

I hope you can see the irony of your remark in light of the original point I was making.

[patrickaljord]

> Oh, so these features are comparable in effort and scale to an entire web browser and HTML5-compliant rendering engine then?

Strawman, I never said the Chrome team deserved all the credit, or that KHTML did for that matter. All I meant was that the WebKit team didn't deserve all the credit as it's clearly a shared effort between the three of them, not to mention Nokia and others. Also my initial comment was answering a post mentioning HTML5 features.

[recoiledsnake]

>Oh, so these features are comparable in effort and scale to an entire web browser

Didn't Apple take the KHTML (Konqueror was a full fledged browser) code and then had to release their code because it was GPL. I remember reading about a complaint from the KHTML that Apple was releasing the code as a big blob and this was hindering KHTML integration.

[scrod]

> Didn't Apple take the KHTML (Konqueror was a full fledged browser) code...

WebKit has vastly evolved from the original KHTML library, to the point of being almost an entirely different product. The KHTML team has been pulling changes from WebKit (http://trac.webkit.org/browser) for many years now.

[cooldeal]

Of course a product would evolve in 9 years, that doesn't mean that the credit for the full browser goes to Apple. If so, then why did they have to fork KHTML in the first place? Of course, KHTML benefited too, because of the LGPL/GPL licensing, but that doesn't change facts now.

Instructive link, Apple praising KHTML and reasoning why they used it http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104197092318639&...

So, saying that Google took Apple's full browser is not really true, Chrome mostly took Webcore, they have their own JS engine and their own UI chrome(!), and WebCore has a lot of roots in KHTML

[drivebyacct2]

So if Apple does it, they're "evolving" an existing project... but the vast work that the Chrome team has put into WebKit is just nothing?

Your bias is showing. Hard.

[scrod]

>Your bias is showing. Hard.

Please tell me more, drivebyacct2.

Edit: Your homoeroticism is showing.