Regardless of actual use as an (embedded) browser, it is useful in the sense that it can be used to provide (another) source of validation about whether specs and WPT [1] tests are properly and clearly defined. That helps for long term browser compatibility.
Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.
Internet Explorer was not open source acting as engine everyone's browser could use and it got abandoned by Microsoft. It is not the same situation.
One could argue that effectively Blink is also not open source. At any rate users don't have power over it, as witnessed by the manifest v3 stuff jammed down our throats.
There are many active forks that are an existence proof that it's possible. It's also a ton of man power to maintain your own browser engine.
p-e-w · · focus · HN ↗
It’s apparently still not ready to be used as a browser engine (and may never be), so what exactly is it for?
foresterre · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&product=servo&aligned" rel="nofollow">https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&pro...
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
Making a new browser engine hurts browser compatibility more than it helps it. It now becomes one more target that needs to be tested against, limitations need to be kept tracked of, etc. The best thing for long term browser compatibility is focusing resources into Blink. In regards to the standard we can use LLMs to cross reference the spec, with tests, and with the implementation to make sure all match.
teekert · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
teekert · · focus · HN ↗
pygy_ · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗