Tech Off Thread

35 posts

Why can't MS create a new browser based on .Net?

Back to Forum: Tech Off
  • User profile image
    footballism

    DCMonkey said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    I hear WebKit has a reasonably portable back end. I wonder if it could be ported to render to a Direct3D surface which could then better interop with WPF via D3DImage.

    The fundamental issue here is that Windows Vista even Windows 7 doesn't support GDI redirection for child HWNDs. If this is supported, there will be a much better interop story with the MIL rendering path.

    Zhou Yong

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    Being .Net/WPF based could be an interesting story.
    1) Being vector based the free scaling/sizing would be new.
    2) Browser-in-browser UX (e.g. picture-in-picture).  You could easily add other brower windows inside others for some interesting features.  Each browser could also be at a different scale or clipping region.
    3) Make client follow ASP.Net component model and pipeline on the client.  Can hook in anywhere in the pipeline.  Allows you to program and script your browser UX and sessions.  A Favorite, for example, could be a piece of script that sets up some tabs or a browser-in-browser experience.

    Many other things become possible and interesting.

  • User profile image
    ManipUni

    It would be too slow. Plus it has very few benefits. .Net addons and expansion can be accomplished without having the entire browser on the platform, and it would only solve a single type of security issue.

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    ManipUni said:

    It would be too slow. Plus it has very few benefits. .Net addons and expansion can be accomplished without having the entire browser on the platform, and it would only solve a single type of security issue.

    I disagree.  Having it vector based is a single huge feature for browsers.  Animations and graphics would become better and easier for the programmers also.  Essentially what we are talking about is Silverlight which does this and is .Net based.  This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.  However, with a .net browser, you would not require silverlight and could just use the standard .net runtime and wpf.  TMK, you can't vector scale any browser today (only thumbnail it).  A plugable .net pipeline is the future.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    ManipUni said:

    It would be too slow. Plus it has very few benefits. .Net addons and expansion can be accomplished without having the entire browser on the platform, and it would only solve a single type of security issue.

    "It would be too slow. Plus it has very few benefits. .Net addons and expansion can be accomplished without having the entire browser on the platform, and it would only solve a single type of security issue."

     

    Please explain why using .net would make it too slow? or perhaps you mean something else would be slow?

  • User profile image
    Ion Todirel

    >Why can't MS create a new browser based on .Net?

    for the same reason they can't create a new browser in C++

  • User profile image
    crashsr

     I am new here I would like to say that I am studing programming right now.

     

  • User profile image
    footballism

    staceyw said:
    ManipUni said:
    *snip*

    I disagree.  Having it vector based is a single huge feature for browsers.  Animations and graphics would become better and easier for the programmers also.  Essentially what we are talking about is Silverlight which does this and is .Net based.  This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.  However, with a .net browser, you would not require silverlight and could just use the standard .net runtime and wpf.  TMK, you can't vector scale any browser today (only thumbnail it).  A plugable .net pipeline is the future.

    -> This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.

    This is an interesting hypothesis, could you please elaborate on which basis you make this type of conclusion, you don't know that SL could be hosted out of browser?

    Zhou Yong

  • User profile image
    footballism

    staceyw said:

    Being .Net/WPF based could be an interesting story.
    1) Being vector based the free scaling/sizing would be new.
    2) Browser-in-browser UX (e.g. picture-in-picture).  You could easily add other brower windows inside others for some interesting features.  Each browser could also be at a different scale or clipping region.
    3) Make client follow ASP.Net component model and pipeline on the client.  Can hook in anywhere in the pipeline.  Allows you to program and script your browser UX and sessions.  A Favorite, for example, could be a piece of script that sets up some tabs or a browser-in-browser experience.

    Many other things become possible and interesting.

    -> 3) Make client follow ASP.Net component model and pipeline on the client.  Can hook in anywhere in the pipeline.  Allows you to program and script your browser UX and sessions.

    If you use WPF for a reasonable period of time, you might think WPF's control/component model is much better.

    Zhou Yong

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    footballism said:
    staceyw said:
    *snip*

    -> This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.

    This is an interesting hypothesis, could you please elaborate on which basis you make this type of conclusion, you don't know that SL could be hosted out of browser?

    Zhou Yong

    "This is an interesting hypothesis, could you please elaborate on which basis you make this type of conclusion, you don't know that SL could be hosted out of browser?"

    Hi Zhou.  You missed my point.  You keep saying .Net would provide little value.  Silverlight is essentially a browser that using XAML instead of HTML.  That is a good example of .Nets value, and it is not slow.  In fact, switching content can be orders faster then older methods.  SL3 can be hosted out of browser, but not sure how that fits to what we are saying.

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    footballism said:
    staceyw said:
    *snip*

    -> 3) Make client follow ASP.Net component model and pipeline on the client.  Can hook in anywhere in the pipeline.  Allows you to program and script your browser UX and sessions.

    If you use WPF for a reasonable period of time, you might think WPF's control/component model is much better.

    Zhou Yong

    "If you use WPF for a reasonable period of time, you might think WPF's control/component model is much better."

    I think I was agreeing with that.  I am saying take the same track Scott Gu did with ASP.Net on the browser side using a pipeline model where you can hook in almost anywhere  (i.e. redirect popups to a log file if you want, or log site hits, etc)  Using powershell snippets or other .Net language. 

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    Here is a collection of 100% managed HTML rendering controls that show a lot of promise. Maybe MS should hire this guy to work on an official .Net control:

    http://htmlrenderer.codeplex.com/

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    footballism said:
    staceyw said:
    *snip*

    -> This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.

    This is an interesting hypothesis, could you please elaborate on which basis you make this type of conclusion, you don't know that SL could be hosted out of browser?

    Zhou Yong

    "-> This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.

    This is an interesting hypothesis, could you please elaborate on which basis you make this type of conclusion, you don't know that SL could be hosted out of browser?

    Zhou Yong"

    that does not mean that the browser is not there...

    the SL3 OOB is just a window on the desktop that is the "Parent COntainer" for the SL runtime to draw into.

    if the SL app uses any .Net bits that need to access the IE engine then IE still has to be installed for that to work.

    Next is my guess, on a system that does not have IE, like on a Mac the SL runtime hooks on to some local library that supplies the bits?

    I might be wrong but that's how i take it the SL3 OOB works.

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    figuerres said:
    footballism said:
    *snip*

    "-> This is the reason silverlight needs a runtime in the browser to pull off its magic.

    This is an interesting hypothesis, could you please elaborate on which basis you make this type of conclusion, you don't know that SL could be hosted out of browser?

    Zhou Yong"

    that does not mean that the browser is not there...

    the SL3 OOB is just a window on the desktop that is the "Parent COntainer" for the SL runtime to draw into.

    if the SL app uses any .Net bits that need to access the IE engine then IE still has to be installed for that to work.

    Next is my guess, on a system that does not have IE, like on a Mac the SL runtime hooks on to some local library that supplies the bits?

    I might be wrong but that's how i take it the SL3 OOB works.

    "that does not mean that the browser is not there..."

    I did not say otherwise.  The browser (in terms of SL) is really only used for the display canvas and a bridge for clicking back into legacy html pages (IE should feel so used Smiley)  However the browser proper (e.g. IE) is not required for SL.  So SL/xaml is, in effect, a new .net based browser - that parses xaml instead of html and has its own display processor.  This is shown clearly with SL hosted outside the browser using its own host.  My point has only been that .net tech in browser senerios works today and has value, unlike what others are saying.  I have only pointed out SL as a prime example.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    staceyw said:
    figuerres said:
    *snip*

    "that does not mean that the browser is not there..."

    I did not say otherwise.  The browser (in terms of SL) is really only used for the display canvas and a bridge for clicking back into legacy html pages (IE should feel so used Smiley)  However the browser proper (e.g. IE) is not required for SL.  So SL/xaml is, in effect, a new .net based browser - that parses xaml instead of html and has its own display processor.  This is shown clearly with SL hosted outside the browser using its own host.  My point has only been that .net tech in browser senerios works today and has value, unlike what others are saying.  I have only pointed out SL as a prime example.

    Stacyw: i was replying to football's question.  i agree with your points. i think silverlight is very interesting new development.

    in fact i am working on getting familiar with it in hopes of not having to mess with flash  in the near future.

    i do not really like coding in flashes actionscript.... bleh!  .Net Rocks!

  • User profile image
    staceyw

    figuerres said:
    staceyw said:
    *snip*

    Stacyw: i was replying to football's question.  i agree with your points. i think silverlight is very interesting new development.

    in fact i am working on getting familiar with it in hopes of not having to mess with flash  in the near future.

    i do not really like coding in flashes actionscript.... bleh!  .Net Rocks!

    @figuerres.  Cool.  Have been playing more with it in vs2010 which finally makes it usable for mortals.  Blend 3 beta gets close, but 2010 is going to be way cool for SL/WPF.  Can't wait till VS 2010 Beta2.  Am really liking the SL layout  and the sharp look you get and not having to deal with html crazy spacing, paragraphs, and image space hacks, etc.  Struggling a bit now on how to deal with layout that goes below the browser window space as it gets clipped and scrolling does not seem to work as expected - but I am almost sure this my issue. 

  • User profile image
    footballism

    staceyw said:
    figuerres said:
    *snip*

    "that does not mean that the browser is not there..."

    I did not say otherwise.  The browser (in terms of SL) is really only used for the display canvas and a bridge for clicking back into legacy html pages (IE should feel so used Smiley)  However the browser proper (e.g. IE) is not required for SL.  So SL/xaml is, in effect, a new .net based browser - that parses xaml instead of html and has its own display processor.  This is shown clearly with SL hosted outside the browser using its own host.  My point has only been that .net tech in browser senerios works today and has value, unlike what others are saying.  I have only pointed out SL as a prime example.

    -> So SL/xaml is, in effect, a new .net based browser - that parses xaml instead of html and has its own display processor.  This is shown clearly with SL hosted outside the browser using its own host.  My point has only been that .net tech in browser senerios works today and has value, unlike what others are saying.  I have only pointed out SL as a prime example.

    Nope, the parsing of XAML and rendering of SL visual tree are all done in unmanaged code, core CLR is only used to expose those features to managed code, since in V1, people still needs to use Javascript which desktop developers doesn't enjoy writing and web developers are tired of writing in it too, so core CLR is just very thin wrapper around the underlying unmanaged SL runtime.

    Actually, the existing WebBrowser control could be retrofitted to workaround the infamous airspace issue by rendering HTML in HWNDless mode, no need to rewrite it from scratch.

    Zhou Yong

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.