Epiphany 2.28 and webkitgtk

[Christopher Aillon]

On 04/28/2009 03:04 AM, Martin Sourada wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the WebKit GTK port, webkitgtk, has gained some momentum during the
> Fedora 11 development and it looks like it might be ready for being
> default in Epiphany 2.28 [1]. And so I though it might be worth tracking
> this change and helping with testing for Fedora 12 (I have been already
> testing webkitgtk in midori and I can see it has improved *a lot* during
> the past few months and much more improvements will come in the next
> release as well).
>
> Because this falls under the Desktop SIG 'reign', I thought I'd contact
> you first, even before trying to sketch some feature page, to see what
> are your positions regarding this change. Do we have some specific use
> cases that we consider a must-have for epiphany being ship with WebKit
> back-end in Fedora in addition to those outlined at the upstream
> tracking page[1] (ability to authenticate to koji web interface [2]
> springs to mind)? Are there any general concerns about using WebKit over
> XULRunner in Epiphany in Fedora?

The only concern I have is whether it will finally make it as the 
default upstream.  It's been going to happen for the past few releases. 
  Maybe this one will finally be it.  But then I was saying that 6 
months ago, too.  If it does, great, and we'll migrate to webkit (the XR 
backend will go away when it does, so it's not like there's a real 
choice anyway ;-)


> On a similar note, perhaps worth a different thread in -devel list,
> webkitgtk supports (more or less functionally from my experience)
> browser plug-ins using the NP API (swfdec-mozilla,
> java-1.6.0-openjdk-plugin, totem-mozplugin, etc). These are usually put
> into -mozplugin or -mozilla subpackages. I am not sure how much of sense
> this makes when these are actually used both in mozilla based and webkit
> based (IIRC the QT port of WebKit supports them as well) applications
> and as such the mozilla suffix does not make much sense. Perhaps
> -(web)browser-plugin would be a better suffix?

The plugin format is still the mozilla format.  But I don't really care 
either way.