Talk:List of web browsers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opera

Opera web browser is still missing in the list. I don't know, however, into which category Opera belongs. --Maxl 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just found it. It's not correctly sorted into the alphabetical list. I'll change that. --Maxl 16:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The following text appears on the page, "Aushim was here", Possible vandalism

External links.

Shouldn't each browser have a link to additional information? All the browsers which have a wiki article have such a link. Creating additional wiki articles "just" for the purpose of providing an external link to additional information seems like a bad idea.

I see nothing in the Wiki External Links articles which justifies deleting the external links from browsers which do not have an internal link. A list by definition is little more than a set of categorized links. A list entry without a link isn't very useful and forces the wiki user to use a search engine to find additional information.

The issue of whether lists belong on Wiki is another issue all together, but Wiki lists which do exist should not be intentionally made hard to use. --VMS Mosaic

I agree - it's not always clear what lists are called and which are not... Regardless (sortta) I have added ext.links to Chimera (NOT Camino) & DeepNet MonstaPro 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Omission

Someone needs to add David T. Pierson's "WannaBe" browser - Mac OS 8/9's best ever text-browser. Some people still run it! --Beforedecay 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary searches through Google prove inconclusive; however I did find something! MonstaPro 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain of what your search proves. Is the article supposed to be an exhaustive list of web browsers that exist and have existed or only the top few ones? Thanks --Beforedecay 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DOS-based "Net' App's"

Added link to Bernadi's work on cataloging DOS applications. MonstaPro 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kidz - the browser for children

Is this anything to do with KidRocket? MonstaPro 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What broswer?

My school is using a browser where it has a purpleish-pink border on the top (compare with blue top border on IE and firefox). What browser is my school's computer? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't GNOME's default browser is firefox?

I'm using Ubuntu, so i might be wrong if the Ubuntu guys changed it. --Amir Eldor 09:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Firefox is the default browser of Ubuntu. You can use the following link as the reference - https://help.ubuntu.com/7.04/internet/C/web-browsing.html Foxius 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Historically important browsers?

I really don't think Mozilla Application Suite, Apple Safari, & Mozilla Firefox should be on the Historically important browsers list. They are not "historic", they basicly have just came out in the past few years... -- 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Mozilla Firefox, What makes it historically important is that it's the first (?) massivly-used browser which conforms to web-standards. Thus recommended by many web-designers and CSS tutorials that also advise you to smack yourself on the head if you still use IE. Amir Eldor 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the personal preference of which browser to use is a reasonable excuse for a public offence. I agree that Mozilla Firefox is historically important, but not because of the conformance to web-standards (I'm yet to find a browser which does). Firefox is important because it's (a) the first open-source browser which became so popular (b) provides a set of open-source technologies such as XUL, XPCOM, etc. Foxius 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Historic != Historical. IMHO, whichever gets released first, IE8, Opera 10 or Firefox 4, will become a historically important browser. 130.230.92.227 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Web Browsers

Glancing over the list, it seems to span about ten years. Does anyone want to put dates on the entries (with citations of course) Tedickey 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ace explorer

Ace explorer is a somewhat popular browser, I'm not sure what section it would be in but it porbably should be included

82.71.12.130

The way to go about it would be to write a (NPOV) article on "Ace Explorer (web browser)", and add a wikilink to it, e.g., in "Other browsers". There are of course several red-links in the topic, which is an indication of lack of interest Tedickey 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Most of the external links in the article should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK --Ronz 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done by Irishguy. Thanks! --Ronz 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of 'External links' above appears to have been ignored. I guess the only acceptable solution then is to create small articles for browsers which need added to the list. Yes, SPAM needs deleted, but a list should be as complete as possible (or why bother having one?). I didn't think 'VMS Mosaic' was notable enough for a separate article, but I guess I will create one anyway. VMS Mosaic 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it appears I ignored it. I did not. There are other solutions. See WP:LIST. I think the easiest solution is to find a reliable and independent source for such a list, then include that as an external link or use it as a source to expand the existing list. --Ronz 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since all external links were removed, it appears that none of them are considered reliable. Tedickey 11:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I added "and independent" to my comment above. If we could find say a review of web browsers in a reliable source not written by a web-browser developers, then we could use that list as a source for a list here. --Ronz 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article contains numerous red links for browsers that do not have articles. The convention that editors follow over at List of search engines is that no search engine may be added to the list unless it has a real article. I suggest that we observe the same convention here, and delete all the red links. Otherwise the page will fill up with redlinks to non-notable browsers that are famous to no-one except their creator. EdJohnston 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Until we can come up with a better inclusion criteria (see WP:LIST), we should only list web browsers that already have their own article. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Otherwise the page will fill up with redlinks to non-notable browsers that are famous to no-one except their creator." And in one stroke Ronz removed NotJustBrowsing thinking it be as unknown as any other foolish unknown browser. What can I say accept Bravo to Ronz for chopping all red links without discrimination. NotJustBrowsing was one of the 3 bowsers in a very short list and not one in a list of 200 web browsers. It is either ignorance or prejudice, can't be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 December 2007

Same reason why entries for Scope and Networker browsers were removed from under the very same heading. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_web_browsers&oldid=154242609 ) :( 193.229.159.16 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If a web browser is important enough to be included here, it should have been evaluated or at least commented upon in detail in some external published medium. That means it should have a reference to a reliable source. That could be a book, newspaper, magazine, the trade press, or an edited website that has a reporting staff. If a browser has reliable sources, that will usually justify having a separate Wikipedia article about it. That is the benefit of requiring blue links for entries in the list. See List of search engines for a place where that kind of rule works well. EdJohnston 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Presto-based browsers

I would assume that this list should also include the Internet Channel on the Nintendo Wii as Opera was contracted by Nintendo to write the Internet Channel. 195.77.63.25 13:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional browsers

Not quite sure if this is supposed to be an exhaustive list of (officially released?) web browsers, I would like to point out two that don't appear to be listed.

1) Charlotte, for CMS 2) EnterWeb, a 3270 browser for S/390s

Refer to http://www.vm.ibm.com/ebusiness/browsers.html for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwaptiva (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check whether you can find independent reliable sources about these browsers, to use as references. This would help to show their importance. If hardly anyone uses them, it's not clear that they would deserve a place here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Charlotte, a simple google search for "charlotte CMS browser" returns a number of interesting hits, most notably an interview with the developers/maintainers (http://www.rexxla.org/Newsletter/9810charlotte.html).

I'm not too familiar with the way CMS works, but I do believe applications like Charlotte would be installed at a server level and then be available to all users. So install base and use base are hard to estimate. The article tries but of course these are the devs, so possibly unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwaptiva (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out the "Orca"-browser. This is the same browser as "Avant"-browser but with a distinct difference. Orca is based on Firefox, and Avant on Internet Explorer. Please add to your comprehensive list. www.orcabrowser.com www.avantbrowser.com --87.57.217.65 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Robert de Jong, Denmark

The problem is: there is no article! And on the Avant artical is only one sentence about this browser. please write first the article! mabdul 0=* 12:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree (would be nice to cleanup comparison-of topic, but that seems to be a spam-zone). Googling on Orca finds enough diversity of hits that it's likely that some interested person would have enough material to develop a topic that satisfies the notability requirement Tedickey (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Salamander (web browser)

Just clarifying my edit history comment, when deleting a red link to Salamander. What happened is that Salamander (web browser) got deleted via WP:PROD on 22 December. The PROD reason (which for the moment, can still be seen in the Google cache, was 'Obsolete and non-notable application.' There was also a redirect at Salamander web browser that got deleted as WP:CSD#R1 on 23 December. From what I can see there is no reason to keep an article on Salamander. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WebSurfer

http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-audio/7196790-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.196.113 (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Epiphany Browser

Epiphany is listed under both Gecko and Webkit/KHTML. On my Ubuntu box, it says it's running Gecko. Is there a mistake, or are you given the option somewhere of specifying Webkit/KHTML? In either case, I think the page could be made a little clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.240.40 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See Epiphany (browser) ;-) --Liebeskind (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notable browsers" section should be removed

I can't see any reason why there should be a sub-section of "notable" browsers, listed by release date, when the section above is itself a historical list of browsers notable enough to have WP articles. This should be removed as redundant and unnecessary (my original attempt to address this was reverted). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having a table of historical browsers, arranged by date, and then a list of 'notable browsers' doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd support removing the section for 'notable browsers.' EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added the original Mozilla browser to this list. I think there is a purpose to this second list: namely that since there is a lot of detailed information in the main table, this serves as a summary or overview for those with a more casual interest. However, it seems to me that there are a few questionable entries in the early part it. I have trimmed it to the following, each of which had a clearer role in the evolution that led to today's world:

• WorldWideWeb, February 26, 1991
• Mosaic, April 22, 1993
• Netscape Navigator and Netscape Communicator, October 13, 1994
• Internet Explorer (August 1995)
• Opera, 1996, see History of the Opera Internet suite
• Mozilla Navigator, June 5, 2002[4]
• Safari, January 7, 2003
• Mozilla Firefox, November 9, 2004

Of course, we still need a citation for every browser's release date. --Nigelj (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of the second list is give a brief overview of browser evolution. Actually, I see the first list as having little value. If someone actually wants to know when Slipnot or Maxthon was released, they will go directly to the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it stands, there is nothing in that 2nd sub-list to indicate why these are notable in the evolution of browser technology. Some kind of annotation and citation is necessary to make this serve that purpose. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree (but the rationale should be brief). Both lists require constant weeding. Tedickey (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Web browsers by year}} template

A recent edit by user Mabdul removed the table that is the central feature of this article and replaced it by a template. What is the benefit of this? The only effect I can see is that it is now impossible for an average contributor (such as myself) to maintain this page. Where, exactly, is one meant to click to find a way to edit this table now? Is there some magic search that leads to this template's page? Searching for '{{Web browsers by year}}', 'Web browsers by year' and 'Web browsers by year template' reveals nothing. Will I understand the syntax when someone tells me where it is? (is template syntax the same as the rest of the wiki)? Surely this table is not re-used by any other pages, so this template has no other uses, apart from making this page harder to maintain?

Without some very good answers to these questions, I propose reverting to normal wikipedia page behaviour soon. --Nigelj (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Any" editor can update it. See Template:Web browsers by year Tedickey (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was this crazy man! I did this because of not needing updating two identical tables: The first in the list of web browsers and the second in the comparison of webbrowsers... mabdul 0=* 18:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The template-as-table looks okay to me Tedickey (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine, its just that without knowing the previously undiscoverable link to Template:Web browsers by year, "any" editor definitely could not maintain it. Is it possible in the template itself to put a link, visible to all, with text like 'Edit this table' that points to the template page so that others can also edit it without them having to stumble upon this Talk thread?

A second point - if you are maintaining two articles with largely identical information on both, have you considered merging the articles? What is the point of merely listing web browsers in one place, then listing them again elsewhere and comparing them. Why not list and then compare them in one place? Shall I add Merge templates, or shall we just do so? --Nigelj (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my change, but that of User:Mabdul. I was pointing out where to modify it. Tedickey (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare these two articles. there are many lists and comparions for the same topic at the same time. (look at the software comparisons!) why adding a link for editing the table if this a feature and the normal behaviour of wp? the other articles don't need any link, why should we add here? that doesn't make any sense! I had to learn like you where to edit(but I found the template without any help :D)! mabdul 0=* 10:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Origyn

Tedickey, I have noticed that you have been excessively reverting others' changes to List of web browsers. I also note from your talk page that this is not the first time you have been engaged in such behaviour on the English wikipedia. I am now watching the page and will protect it if you continue to make reversions. If you have an objection to some newly added content, please raise it with the original contributor and let them make changes to their own text. I will also replace (again) my addition of the Origyn Web Browser. Your summary when reverting it claimed it was non-notable. Perhaps you do not realise but this new browser is the first (and currently only) standards-compatible browser to be released for the AmigaOS in the past decade.[1] Even though I am not an Amiga user, I consider this to be sufficient for inclusion in the Wikipedia. The inclusion of a link to a page which is not yet written will hopefully spur someone familiar with the browser to write an article about it. Red links are not something that should be 'purged', but are there to help the encyclopaedia grow. — Nicholas (reply) @ 08:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that places all of the burden of proof on everyone else, to provide reliable sources and content for the topic which you favor. Why not simply go the normal route, and build your case by making an appropriate topic? Tedickey (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to do it because the reliable sources appear to be lacking (other than promotional material, such as the link which you provided above, or press releases from Pleyo). Hope that helps you in your edits to justify Origyn's notability. Tedickey (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is really easy: WP:WTAF --> Write the Article First, then linking! mabdul 0=* 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Timeline Graphic

The text on the timeline graphic is too small to read on my broswer (IE7). Clicking on the graphic does not help. Zooming in just gives pixellated and illegible text. Is it supposed to look like this? Is there a way of getting a readable version of this graphic? FrankSier (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If I click once, I see pixels, but clicking a second time zooms in and it's legible. Tedickey (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Timeline Graphic Revisited [2010]

To be able to read the timeline graphic on my 19" wide screen display, res. 1440*900, I must view the image separately at the maximum size of 2000px. I've tried it on that same display at res. settings down to 800x600, also on a 17" square display with res. 1024*768. This applies whether the browser is IE8, Firefox3.0.4 & 3.6, and Opera 9/10.51.
In every case, none of the sizes is legible without using browser options to zoom in on the image... and thereby making the image too large to comfortably comprehend. Although browser zoom is not difficult, I wonder if it's a good idea to have to use it to make the image legible.
Aside from the possibility of re-scaling the image as it stands (which might make it more unwieldy to view), I wonder if the problem is rooted either in the style and size of text in the image or even the concept of having the entire timeline formatted as it is on a single image. I'd be interested to hear other people's take on that.Twistlethrop (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Viewing the SVG in Firefox is perfectly clear (as must be some appropriate raster version in IE). The idea of such a graphic is not to view it all at once like a landscape, but to scroll around it looking for interesting facts and coincidences. There is a similar graphic somewhere about the evolution of programming languages, that is much bigger, and if my memory serves me right, is presented as a Flash application on its creator's website, in a much smaller, and less useful viewport. It is just not possible to present all that information in one 'take', but presenting it at all is much better than not doing so. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing browsers that were in wide use

NetManage's Chameleon comes to mind. I'm pretty sure it was used more than Arachne, as I used to support both, and we only had a few Arachne users, but hundreds of Chameleon users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.211.81 (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add, but please write an article before adding; there is at that moment no article! mabdul 0=* 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

sleipnir as notable browser

as long as sleipnir hasn't fullfilled all blank cells in the comparison of webbrowsers, this can'Ät be a notable browser. the article don't get any improvements and isn't really good. there are to less people working on this article! get more (fan-)boys working on it! mabdul 0=* 11:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The entry here seemed to contradict the Sleipnir (software) article - was this thing released in 2002 or 2004? The fact that it was one man's personal project and he lost the only copy of his source code in that gap does not bode well for its notability...

The 'notable browsers' list reflects a timeline where new development teams created and released significant new web-page rendering technology. Anyone competent in a development language can build a user interface incorporating an existing layout engine as a UI control. Is that all this is? Just a UI wrapper around Trident or Gecko? If so, it need be little more than the equivalent of an undergraduate project.

At most it may deserve to be listed in the top table, but under which year, 2002 or 2004?

It seems to have some Japanese-specific capability, but this is the English Wikipedia, and whatever those features are (over and above those provided 'out of the box' by Trident and Gecko), they may not be notable to English-speaking readers, unless they add some significant breakthough - more than just Japanese translations of the menus and toolbar icons.

--Nigelj (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

yeajh: as I said: the article is not good, their are too less writers at the article; (but browsers are relevant for all, not belong to language); no own engine, only shell/other gui/fork... mabdul 0=* 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Table of browsers

I've turned some of the main browser list into a sortable table of browsers. This needs to be expanded to include the other browsers. It would also be good if an "Interface" column were added, specifying Text/Graphical, and optionally KDE/GTK/whatever. The "Based on / Powered By", "Now/Also known as", and "Formerly" columns should also be merged, with appropriate disambiguators (ie. not just "Firefox", but "Based on: Firefox").

-- TimNelson (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

that was a really bad idea that i reverted! for that purpose that you described is the comparison of web browsers. if you don't find anything that there isn't already implemented and you want to expand: talk to the others at the talkpage and wait for a consense. mabdul 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with everything, except the part about waiting for a consensus. WP:Be bold. After all, if I mess things up, someone can revert :).

-- 118.208.195.193 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Runecats Explorer

Hiya I agreed with the last user, I think RE is a popular browser and quite notable in the history of web browsers, RE has many of the features that GC (Google Chrome) has added recently. Google Chrome is only up on the notable section because it is being marketed on a site which almost every internet user goes on several times a day, Runecats Explorer was one of the first browsers to have a completely different GUI to a standard operating system, it was the first browser to introduce built in skin options without needing plugins, Runecats Explorer was the first web browser to introduce site comparing aids. RE have also introduced many features which certainly aids users browsing the web, some of these features are still not used in any other browser. I believe RE deserves a place there if GC does.

I hope I have declared my views clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcommush (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The linked topic has no reliable sources. If you have some, perhaps the improved topic would demonstrate that it is notable Tedickey (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok what would you classify as a reliable source? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcommush (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Built-In Browser

On the list, it included BentoBrowser or something, that was built into Winamp. So, since your including browsers built into other applications, xFire has a built-in web browser, usable when in-game. Just thought i'd mention that. 65.116.31.254 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (I cant remember my username for here, but i think its either GothicAngel or some variation of DreamHack.)

Runecats Explorer and Flock

User:Newzealandersdreamland is a new user, whose only edits ever so far on Wikipedia have been to revert these two browsers back into the 'Notable browsers' list twice. Now, I really don't believe that these two rate alongside Mosaic, Internet Explorer and Firefox as landmarks in the history of the web.

The argument that they "use the same user agents as the browsers they are based from" and so don't "come up on the market share website" is spurious. First, they don't use the same 'user agents', they use the same layout engines, viz Trident and Gecko respectively. Second, the stats used by market share websites is based on the user agent header passed with HTTP requests and this will almost certainly be identifiable for these two browsers.

Finally, Newzealandersdreamland also keeps reverting back in the linking of all those dates in contravention of WP:DATE.

There has been link spam in this list before, as fans try to promote their favourite products, and quite frankly I would rather delete the list and stick with the main table that is the subject of the article than get into regular debates like this for no real gain to the encyclopedia's usefulness.

What do other editors think? --Nigelj (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Personly I don't get the point in the notable browser section however Flock is the first social networking browser, Runecats Explorer was the first browser to allow skinning on the entire GUI (including the title bar) and as far as I am aware it is still the most search aiding browser. I think if you keep the notable browser section then you should keep these browsers.

Softwaregeekland77777 (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The notable browser section is intended to give a quick timeline overview of the significant browsers which have lead to the web browsing experience to be what it is today. It is arguable that Opera, Safari and Chrome should not be included. Trivial browsers like Flock and Runecats have no place in the list.

I find the historical list to be even less meaningful/useful than the notable list. If someone wants to know when some minor release of some trivial browser took place, they should check that browser's page instead of searching thru some complex and otherwise pointless list. If any list is removed, it should be the historical table, given that it mostly duplicates the info in Timeline of web browsers. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First (or even one of the first ones) browser to support full skinning ? Even NeoPlanet did it over half a decade before RE. 130.230.92.11 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The History list is useful it shows most information about most browsers, I can't see how you can work out which browsers are classified as notable and which are not.

Softwaregeekland77777 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First it is in the historical section, so it is actually a list of historically notable browsers (i.e., browsers which have had a notable impact on the history of browsing the web). WorldWideWeb started it, Mosaic brought it to the public's attention, Netscape and IE made it commercial and Mozilla made it Open Source. The others (in particular Opera) are debatable. It could be argued that Firefox and Chrome have reopened the browser wars. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

I see that a few editors have been removing random mentions of license types, "for consistency". I agree that odd emphasis on this in a few specific cases is neither useful nor ornamental. On the other hand, this article manages to add a lot of value by listing and subdividing browsers by layout engine, by technology (java), by notability, etc. I wonder if, without too much duplication it might be possible consistently to represent the licence terms of the browsers and layout engines listed? It would certainly be interesting to see how many of them are truly free (GPL, BSD, Apache or whatever licensed), compared to purely proprietary ones, and other half-way houses. --Nigelj (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That sort of treatment is (over)done in Comparison of web browsers. Adding emphasis to "a few" in a list draws attention to them Tedickey (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)