"There was never a proper embeddable gecko" is both (a) a strong claim which with some difficulty we might be able adjudicate, but not especially important whether we do or not because, crucially, it is (b) not the same thing as saying/proving that "Gecko was not originally conceived to be embeddable" (or proving that its negation is untrue).
Gecko was not, at the time that Servo was conceived, supposed to be easy to embed. Gecko had, by the time that Servo was conceived, undergone refactoring that knowingly made it more difficult to embed. It would be accurate to say that, at the time that Servo was conceived, embeddability of Gecko was an explicit non-goal.
This is exactly why I raised the issue of the logical throughline of the other comment—what is the point of mentioning Gecko's embeddability in this discussion? All right, Gecko is "notoriously unembeddable". So what? It's a complete nonsequitur, and it risks catching anyone off guard if they're not playing close enough attention and they mistake it for a salient retort of... something not actually stated or argued here
Gecko was not, at the time that Servo was conceived, supposed to be easy to embed. Gecko had, by the time that Servo was conceived, undergone refactoring that knowingly made it more difficult to embed. It would be accurate to say that, at the time that Servo was conceived, embeddability of Gecko was an explicit non-goal.
This is exactly why I raised the issue of the logical throughline of the other comment—what is the point of mentioning Gecko's embeddability in this discussion? All right, Gecko is "notoriously unembeddable". So what? It's a complete nonsequitur, and it risks catching anyone off guard if they're not playing close enough attention and they mistake it for a salient retort of... something not actually stated or argued here