On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Jess Hampshire wrote:
I was assuming that if "standard" plug-ins were possible
support, this could possibly be used by other browsers, and
encourage enhancements to it from outside the project, and those be fed
back to it.
Given that our image support is nearing completion, this seems like
creating work for no apparent reason...
> > Am I right in thinking that the two values in the wimpslot
are how much
> > an app needs and how much it would like?
Hmm is this an "umm - yes" an "umm - no, totally the wrong tree" or
"umm - that's the way it's supposed to work, but..."?
It's an "umm - I can't remember" ;)
So the memory saving is purely down to less code being loaded?
In the case of SSL, yes.
> Image support could be toggled at runtime, as the amount of
memory it uses
> depends on the images it downloads. It could also be removed from the
Are there ways off offsetting image quality for RAM requirements?
Possibly, though we haven't investigated doing anything like this.