Talk:Comparison of browser engines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criteria for being an 'engine'

This is in response to the end of an archived thread about the criteria for what should be considered an engine. In principle it's not that hard to define. The browser engine article already does a good job of this, though what's covered there is most applicable to the mainstream engines (which collectively account for over 99% of actual browser usage).

It's a bit trickier for the tiny niche hobbyist projects, like NetSurf and LibWeb. The consensus reached in the archived thread on NetSurf is a good guideline, in that the set of libraries and components that can be called an "engine" could, in theory, be used by another group of hobbyists to make a different browser. This is, after all, at the heart of what a software engine is: a large component that can be reused for a different software project. However, the nature of these types of hobby projects is heavily DIY: the lure of designing and implementing their own new thing is what tends to motivate them. But this doesn't invalidate the design of the software to feasibly be reused by a different project (even if that never actually happens). --Pmffl (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Eww (Emacs web browser and engine)?

Eww_(web_browser) is a rendering engine integrated in Emacs since version 24.4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArneBab (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago I reverted the addition of Eww here. I hadn't heard of it before and seeing a few minutes of it on Youtube shows that it's an extremely limited browsing capability baked into Emacs. (It's early 1990s style browsing.)

Here's the current problem with Eww as it's classified on Wikipedia: it's categorized as a web browser and written about as such (and is in the web browser template). If it's a stand-alone browser (albeit with extremely limited capabilities) then it cannot also be classified as an engine too. It would have to be one or the other. As it stands, it's a browser here on Wikipedia, not an engine. --Pmffl (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I revisited this today and just rewrote the Eww article. It is indeed a lightweight browser, and is certainly not a browser engine. (There are underlying libraries in Emacs required for it to run.) So that should settle this issue here. --Pmffl (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for reference, see this edit. -Pmffl (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Irrelevant standards

I'm writing this because an IP editor has twice added JPEG 2000 to the image format table. I've removed it both times because it's irrelevant to the real Web; only Safari supports it, so nobody uses it. I'm of the opinion that only relevant stuff should be in those tables. -Pmffl (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed JPEG XL for the same reason. Google decided not to support it in Chrome, so therefore it's irrelevant to the real Web. -Pmffl (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that JPEG XL should be included. This was big news when Google removed it - most likely due to conflict of interest of the relevant employees - and again when Apple added it. It's also supported by Pale Moon, Firefox Nightly and various Chromium and Firefox forks.

It's arguably the best and most versatile image format we have at the moment, strictly superior to Webp and mostly superior to Avif, with a wide industry backing from companies such as Meta and Adobe, and the unique ability to losslessly compress legacy JPEGs.

I would strongly suggest adding JPEG XL back, even if it's just to show how Blink is the one engine holding us back. Isnt that the point of the engine comparison? Right now it just shows that every engine supports every format. Pointless.

Besides, APNG and BMP are arguably less relevant than JPEG XL. I've never seen them used anywhere on the web. 86.17.94.33 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those arguments matter compared to lack of Blink support and thus doomed to irrelevance on the Web. And I disagree with the "Pointless" opinion. The point of an encyclopedia is to be informative for a wide range of readers (some with little or no technical background). So in this article's Support section, listing what actually matters on the Web is the point.

(In that vein, I agree that APNG is likely irrelevant too. I never heard of it outside of this article, but since the major engines all support it, it's possible that a website could use it.) -Pmffl (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted APNG from the table, as discussed above. Having regular PNG is enough to be listed there. -Pmffl (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And removed BMP too. I recall them long ago on the Web, but just another tiny niche format on the Web these days. -Pmffl (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It occured to me today that an explanatory note about Blink dominance would be a helpful addition. So I added one. This seems like a good compromise on this matter. -Pmffl (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe let's not say that Google Chrome is by definition the best browser

The article as it stands defines Google Chrome to be the best browser, because everything that it supports is included and everything it doesn't support is irrelevant. Blink will, by definition, have absolutely every square marked as green.

I think it's clear that this position is a hard nut. I mean, given the fact there is no source attached to the statement "[such standards] will not become relevant on the Web", it is as good as WP:OR. I would argue that a good compromise position will be to keep the current table with main standards as is, but add a second, collapsed-by-default table of other, less common standards, such as BMP, JXL etc. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 10:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Read this Ars piece on XL. This article currently documents the way things are in an objective manner. (Nowhere does it advocate Chrome as "the best browser".) -Pmffl (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmffl no, it just says that things chrome does are good and things chrome doesn't do are bad.

I mean, I can agree about JXL, but the logic behind that decision can't be that it's not in chrome and therefore not in the chart (which is what happens now). that's non encyclopedic.

also, I don't see how this piece goes against my suggestion of a second table for less common standards. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 07:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article byline literally says "Google, with 80% of browser share, says there's not enough ecosystem interest." Then the FSF rep says "all Google is really doing is asking itself what Google wants." Also, the other referenced article in the footnote states it even more plainly: "The removal of JPEG XL means that none of these above browsers will be able to natively render JPEG XL images, and in turn that effectively dooms the new format, barring the unlikely event of the Mountain View megalith changing course."

As for the other item, a second table is not a good idea. Only stuff that's actually relevant to the current websites (especially the big ones, like Alexa top 1000) belongs in those tables. -Pmffl (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this doesn't justify making the blanket statement "everything Google does is part of the web and everything it doesn't do isn't", and it definitely doesn't justify not having a second table of less common standards. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 05:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be obtuse.

Relevance has absolutely no incidence on whether something should be included or not. Similarly, legacy things like .bmp exist; this should be the only factor that determines whether something should be included or not. Whether it's relevant because "Chrome doesn't support it" or whatever is even more irrelevant. Nathan67003 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko and hevc

Firefox (and presumably other gecko based browsers) do have some experimental support for hevc playback on certain platforms that can be enabled via about:config. 2A00:EE2:600:900:600E:8177:D615:ECE5 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]