mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2024-11-14 09:42:09 +00:00
15 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
15 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
title: "Re: Addition of data for the SerenityOS Browser"
|
||
|
|
date: 2022-08-08T21:32:36-07:00
|
||
|
|
replyURI: "https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/issues/15511"
|
||
|
|
replyTitle: "mdn/browser-compat-data issue 15511: Addition of data for the SerenityOs Browser"
|
||
|
|
replyType: "DiscussionForumPosting"
|
||
|
|
replyAuthor: "Linus Groh"
|
||
|
|
replyAuthorURI: "https://linus.dev/"
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
There's always the possibility of including SerenityOS data in the MDN <abbr title="Browser Compatibility Data">BCD</abbr> tables, but not displaying it on MDN just yet. This could give other projects a chance to use these tables for their own purposes. I think a lack of information on feature compatibility is one of the things holding back website compatibility with non-mainstream engines.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Non-mainstream engines are in a bit of a "catch-22" situation: _enthusiast developers_ don't support them because there's not enough compatibility info; _users_ stick with mainstream engines due to better compatibility; and _other developers_ don't support alternative engines because nobody uses them. Introducing some docs won't break this cycle, but it could disrupt the cycle ever so slightly.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I would love to see feature comparisons of alternative engines (SerenityOS LibWeb, NetSurf, litehtml, Flow Browser, Servo, et. al.). Maybe including just one alternative engine could be a step in that direction, and the SerenityOS browser looks like the most active of the bunch.
|