OmniWeb 5 & KHTML

[Andrew Abernathy]

I doubt we'll commit to a specific approach (KHTML vs our own engine) 
immediately. We will certainly be spending time exploring WebCore, and 
so far we think there is a lot of potential there, but most likely we 
will hold off on any specific commitments until we feel very comfortable 
with doing so, and that's unlikely to happen before we've done a decent 
amount of work around it. Also, Ken is at the expo this week, and thus 
has limited opportunity to play with WebCore.

As for sneakypeeks, we're not currently doing the almost-daily public 
releases. There are a number of reasons for that; I'm not going to go 
into all of them, but they include things like us wanting to improve our 
internal QA and reduce the burden on our overworked support team, reduce 
the frustration on end users evaluating our sneakypeeks as finished 
products, and also on occasion we may integrate features that we're not 
willing to immediately reveal publicly for marketing reasons. That's not 
to say that we won't do any public testing (we will, although I don't 
know all the specifics yet), and I'm not in a position to say exactly 
what we will be doing over time, but we will be refining our release 
approach.

Disclaimer: I don't make these decisions, so it's always possible I'll 
be contradicted by someone who knows better. :-)

-andrew


On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 04:20 PM, Patrick Armbruster wrote:

> Me too want to know. :)
> And of course, the usual question: "Where have all the sneakypeeks 
> gone?" Aren't there any 4.1.2 SPs available?
>
> Am Freitag, 10.01.03, um 01:08 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Michael 
> Brewer:
>
>> Now that the OmniWeb team has had more time to think about it, are you 
>> in favor of using KHTML for OmniWeb 5 or developing your own engine?
>
> Patrick
>
> _______________________________________________
> OmniWeb-l mailing list
> OmniWeb-l at omnigroup.com
> http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/omniweb-l