Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What's the difference between webkit and safari?
- Thread starter WillMak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WebKit is the standard OS X Web library. It's used by Safari, Mail, Help and a few other things, plus some third party browsers. Safari is only the user interface part.
The nightly download things give you development versions of the library, plus some magic goop to make Safari use it.
The nightly download things give you development versions of the library, plus some magic goop to make Safari use it.
Well, yes, it's dependent upon having Safari, but it's also a wee bit misleading to say it runs the normal Safari installed on the system, as it changes a great deal of what's done under the covers, so, while it's Safari you see, there's a lot underneath that isn't Safari.iMeowbot said:
So, yes, you would notice differences, but many things - bookmarks, look and feel, etc. - are literally the same.
Browsers are finally supporting it natively without the Adobe plugin. They aren't there yet, but they will be soon enough. Firefox and WebKit both support it, but both are buggy as of now. Also of note is the fact that next-gen phones are about to come out with SVG support. And add in the increasingly sophisiticated web applications that would benefit from SVG.dejo said:
It's going to happen, and 2007 is the year it'll hit big.
dejo said:
Because of this:
Yes, that really is nothing more than three simple shapes and some equally simple fill patterns. Yes, those splotches in the Adobe plugin are supposed to be circles; why it has so much trouble when the same vendor's Illustrator can render the same file just fine is a mystery (the SVG originated in Illustrator too, go figure). Opera can't seem to position the dots in a straight line or draw them all the same size, Firefox and WebKit don't even try to draw the fills.
rsvg does a respectable job here. Maybe the anti-aliasing is a little heavy, but it can follow instructions and draw the requested shapes.
Interesting!iMeowbot said:
My interest in SVG is almost purely to develop controls and user interface components, so things like animation, line styles, and Javascript integration are more important to me than fills (aside from simple gradients). I see that much work remains in a number of areas for some of the common Mac browsers, but Opera looks quite good, relative to other Mac browsers and at least in the example you gave. I'll go give it a spin to see how it handles animation.
Oh, there's lots more where that came from, that example is just one that floored me a couple months ago (the results were the same then). The state of text handling across engines is even sorrier.
There are lots of nice, slick SVG demos out there, but as everyone does with demos, all the examples are geared toward showing off the bits and pieces that work. When it comes to doing what ordinary people want to do -- save drawings from mainstream editors that look the same when loaded into any old browser -- SVG has a long way to go.
This wouldn't be so annoying it there wasn't an actual need for something like SVG. PDF is too cumbersome for a straight illustration, and Flash is... well, Flash. That leaves the evil of bitmaps
There are lots of nice, slick SVG demos out there, but as everyone does with demos, all the examples are geared toward showing off the bits and pieces that work. When it comes to doing what ordinary people want to do -- save drawings from mainstream editors that look the same when loaded into any old browser -- SVG has a long way to go.
This wouldn't be so annoying it there wasn't an actual need for something like SVG. PDF is too cumbersome for a straight illustration, and Flash is... well, Flash. That leaves the evil of bitmaps
It is pretty simple:
* WebKit is a web rendering engine/library.
* Safari is a web browser, which use WebKit for rendering.
* WebKit is a web rendering engine/library.
* Safari is a web browser, which use WebKit for rendering.
webkit does offer stand alone browser for downloading through www.webkit.org.
webkit is faster than safari
webkit support more standard than safari
webkit has a windows port, yuk
webkit is what safari will be 6 month later.
in short, safari is a stable, but obsolete version of webkit
webkit is faster than safari
webkit support more standard than safari
webkit has a windows port, yuk
webkit is what safari will be 6 month later.
in short, safari is a stable, but obsolete version of webkit
clevin said:
Bottom line: It's the same browser, it's the rendering engine and debugging features that get changed. The browser interface isn't going to be changed drastically by this.
If you want a truly open source browser solution, you could try Shiira which also uses WebKit.
Yeah, it should be possible. Unlike OmniWeb, Shiira doesn't bring along its own copy of WebKit, so the trick would be getting it so use the nightly copy of the framework.clevin said:
What I don't know is if Shiira has any built-in option to make this simple, or if you would have to replace the stock WebKit (probably a bad idea) or relink Shiira (a pain, but safer).
Does Webkit and Safari support
Hi,
Please anybody tell me that Does Webkit and Safari support Transport layer security ,Advance encryption standard and Secure socket layer?
Thanx & Regards
Ajay
Hi,
Please anybody tell me that Does Webkit and Safari support Transport layer security ,Advance encryption standard and Secure socket layer?
Thanx & Regards
Ajay
Yes.
Nice two year thread bump. Funny to see the comments about SVG making it big in 2007 though
. Still no sign of people giving a damn about SVG in 2008.
Safari, when using the nightly builds of WebKit, will be noticabley faster ('snappier'). Since you'll be usind developmental builds, they are not fully tested and may have some issues - however, I've been using WebKit for over a year without any problem whatsoever.
I also like the icon more ;-)