Talk:Web (web browser)

Merge process

Added my Features section. Pre-existing Bookmarks and Epiphany-extensions are left intact for now (though I shifted heading level). I believe a further discussion will be necessary here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added Fork of Galeon, Default GNOME web browser and Release history. Fork of Galeon was mentioned in the article before, but I added more details. I've entirely omitted my Layout engine switch section, as it is covered in more detail in the original. Now many things in Development needs sorting, and I would kindly ask Ahunt to help me with that, as I promised to keep things intact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have converted my references from dts they used to YYYY-MM-DD, as it is currently the default in article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty good so far. We are missing some refs and have some minor formatting errors, etc. I can tag/fix them but I want to make sure you are finished first, before I do anything, so let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I did pretty much all I could. While I have some issues with some parts of the text, I just don't want to mix them in here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well if you are done let me go over it and see how it looks. I should be able to get this done later on today! - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a few small editorial changes and added few tags where refs are missing. I'll let you have a look at that and see you you have any comments. Next I think we have to integrate the Fork of Galeon and Default GNOME web browser sections into the development section as they present parts of the same history twice. The resulting section can be sub-sectioned and even retitled "history" or "Development history" if you like. I think this can be done fairly easily, but I'll wait until you have a look at things now. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Your editorial improvements!

• Fork of Galeon and Default GNOME web browser sections are the parts of a common trend. I did split them to eventually insert some information about Epiphany's early development, but as now there's no such information, I don't mind them joined together.
• Do You think I should provide references for WebKit features? They are covered in details in series of articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think it's necessary.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added references and removed duplicates I've found. I left a single citation needed in Epiphany-extensions, because I wanted to raise this question later — the list is outdated. I've made an up-to-date list in my version but I didn't replace this as for now I was supposed only to add. Can I replace it now, or should we update this list by some other means? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Default GNOME web browser heading. Do You think anything else is required to join them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That all looks good so far. What I was thinking is that the "Fork of Galeon" section is chronologically out of order in the history, so should be be moved up intio the history. Let me do that to show you want I mean and you can see how it looks. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Go on! I would like to see Your vision, but anyway I absolutely agree it belongs to the beginning of the development section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I should get to that this morning. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is done, at least at a preliminary level. I have asked another editor who hasn't worked on the article before to take a look and see if it flows well, logic, copy edit, etc. I figure a third set of editing eyes would help improve things. She should be able to do that later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've split Development into three new subsections for major periods of history. I think this way the article looks better and the readers who look for some specific information can easier find the most interesting parts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that - good idea, I think it improves readability! That other editor I invited to look the article over should be able to get to it today, too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I just had another run though the article fixed up a bit of formatting and such. I think we are "there". At least for now! I think overall the article looks pretty good. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove my draft, as it seems there's nothing useful there now. Could You please have a look, whether I missed something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we got it all! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Epiphany-extensions

I still want to replace the list in the section.

Pros: the current list reflects the state of the package of pre-WebKit era.

Cons: my table is completely WP:OR, I looked in my extension list and pasted. I could give a reference to the packing lists in some distributions, but extracting the extensions list will anyway need special knowledge (one must know that extension files' mask *.ephy-extension, which isn't completely evident, IMHO.

Disputable: my version is a table in "name-description" format, while the original list is a mere list.

So, I don't really know what to do. I've mailed epiphany's mailing list a request to update a list (it actually sounds nice then is summarised here) but that can only solve the problem of reference. I would ask everybody interested to comment on my proposal. This time I'm not going to blindly replace something without prior consensus. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that the Gnome Epiphany home webpages are so out of date is a problem. It seems that when Lopez took over that all updating was stopped, including the dev blog, which was useful information. Until we get some real refs there isn't much we can do except mark the existing extensions text to indicate what time period it represents. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The funniest thing here that we can't do that, as there is no proper information on the subject. I'm going to give a glance to epiphany-extensions changelog in GNOME's GIT and inspect the WayBack Machine's content, but these constitute what we call "thin ice". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So we have an archive of Epiphany Extensions page which remains the same at least since 2008-12-11 and NEWS file from git, which has a long list of added and removed extensions. The latter can be set as reference to the last paragraph before the list (right after :), but this IMHO still is a dubious way of referencing... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That should do it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on a hunt by MrOllie, so I would better refrain from any contribution for a while, in order to prevent damage infliction on this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, the article is in pretty good shape right now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, this or even this link might do for verification. The last question is whether I should update the list or replace it with my table? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The table looks okay to use. I would suggest if both those refs are up to date then cite them both! You can never have too many refs in case one goes dead in the future! - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Done it. I also renamed and extended the section as I found links to currently available third party extensions. I'll extend it more later, as time allows. Revert me if I'm wrong. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor spelling errors, fixed. It will be great when Epiphany gets spell-checking! - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was in a hurry, and I have a mixture of languages, as I speak one language home, two other languages outdoors and write regularly in fourth. BTW, Epiphany has spell checking. I've just had to turn it off due to the bug with non-ascii encodings: eg. word слово gets "corrected" to слово. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No sweat, that is why we collaborate on articles, we catch each other's mistakes and build a better encyclopedia that way. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Added refs to third-party extensions (live and defunct). Also added a statement about find-as-you-type bookmarks access. I'm sure I've read about that somewhere, but I can't recall the source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gecko-based and minor versions

I'm not sure that we are not too much detail. As per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, only major versions should be covered in development section. Instead we have there:

• Development versions:

1. 1.7.2
2. 1.7.3
3. 1.7.4
4. 1.7.5
5. 1.7.6
6. 1.9.1
7. 1.9.2
8. 1.9.3.1
9. 1.9.5
10. 1.9.6
11. 1.9.7
12. 1.9.8
13. 2.15
14. 2.19.2
15. 2.25

• Stable minor versions:

1. 1.8.1 (misspelled as 1.81)
2. 1.8.2
3. 1.8.3
4. 2.16.3 (this one might be actually notable enough)
5. 2.20.2 (probably should get attributed as 2.20?)
6. 2.26.3

We already have all dates in the table. We could use relative dates here to emphasise the timeframes if needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favour of cutting it down to the versions that introduced notable changes or features. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should explain the most notable changes here. My list:

• Simplified location bar (?) (1.8)
• XULRunner (2.14)
• NetworkManager (2.14)
• Multiple backends (2.20)

Any ammendments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed I also cleaned up WebKit-based section, added some new refs and converted "ANNOUNCEMENT" ref to cite mailing list format. It needs some copyediting, and I'm still in doubt about clarity of transition process. May be we should be more explicit about the co-existence of GECKO and WebKit backends in versions 2.20-2.26, abstraction layer and difficulties in its maintaining? As always, feel free to revert me if You see any problems with my edit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, reduced some of the less important stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Article quality rating

I don't feel this article only deserves 'Start quality. May be we should request some higher rating? Which? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea, I really don't pay a lot of attention to ratings. I leave them for others. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for GA. Not sure whether it will make it, but anyway we'll have a feedback on what needs to be improved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GA is a scary process, let's see what happens! - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Renamed

Since Epiphany has been renamed to (the rather presumptuous) new name "Web", should we move this article as well to Web (web browser)? - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it. For now I wrote that it was "renamed", though I'm not entirely sure that it is the case: probably this "rename" only happened within .desktop file. Anyway, I'd reserve my judgment on this issue until I get 3.4 update on my system. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The ref above seems pretty clear: "Epiphany, the GNOME web browser, has been renamed Web." but I have no problem with waiting until you can actually try it out! - 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For reference-based move I would wait for some secondary source reviewing GNOME or Epiphany support this claim. Though GNOME's release notes have the statement, the developer's blog doesn't mention new name in the new version announcement, which may indicate that no actual name change happened. Or may indicate nothing. That is: the question is unclear yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong: "Also, notice that we now brand ourselves as “Web” in all user visible strings." So I support the move. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Do you want to do the honours, then? - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Tomorrow afternoon (UTC) I'll walk through incoming links to make necessary changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that I already fixed everything that doesn't need updating. I left some links to Epiphany (web browsers) when specific old versions were discussed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that searching for reviews of Epiphany Web will now be a complete nightmare... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true - how are we going to find reviews under "Web Browser"?! - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More than a year has passed since the Gnome announcement that Epiphany had been renamed and I am starting to wonder if the name really was changed or not. Let's look at the evidence. Other than the above announcement there is only:

• Main Menu - About - "Web"

The following are places where it is still called Epiphany today:

• The browser's title bar ("Epiphany Web Browser")
• The software package is still officially called epiphany-browser
• On the Gnome website
• On the developer's own mailing list (called the "epiphany-list")
• The extensions package ("Epiphany-extensions")
• In Gnome bug tracking
• The built-in help manual ("Epiphany Manual")
• In the browser's transmitted user agent string
• The github source code repository still calls it Epiphany
• In his most recent post where he refers to it by name on the developer's list, in October 2012, the lead developer, Xan Lopez was still calling it Epiphany

The "main menu about" is really the only place where the name has actually been changed. It is interesting to note that some other Gnome applications don't have their real project names on the "main menu about" though. For instance, the Gnome PDF reader, Evince, on its "Help - about" says "Document Viewer" and Eye of GNOME is called "Image Viewer". My understanding was that this was for menu indexing, so that users wouldn't have to remember the name of the PDF reader and would just see"Document Viewer" on their menus instead.

I am really wondering whether Epiphany was really renamed to "Web" or not. It seems possible that it is still actually called "Epiphany" and the name "Web" is merely for simplified menu indexing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Raspberrian Os on my brand new Raspberry PI 2 uses "Ephiphany" 3.8.2 with webkit 2.4.1 as one of the 4 browsers. No mention is made of "Web" It also currently will not correctly work with ssh @ Calomel.org I hope this helps. Glennndavis (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)