[KDE Dot News]
 faq
 flatforty
 contribute
 subscribe
 configure
 search
 rdf
 main
 parent
 thread


Don't take me wrong but...
by Gr8teful on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @13:46
There are things Mozilla can't do. And Opera can't, too.

Only Konqueror deals correctly with certain sites. I'm not sure whether it's because of KHTML, it probably has to do with going beyond standards to support certain "javascript" proprietary extensions.

While I'm not exactly enthusiastic about this, it is more or less like Openoffice.org excellent compatibility with the .doc format: it is essential to make proprietary software, erm, less relevant.

So, yes, I think this Gecko porting is great (and technically impressive, considering the short time they spent). Nonetheless, what I think is more important is that people are starting to exchange ideas and programs.

Isn't it what open/free people are supposed to do best? :-) I think this is really good to the spirit.

Good luck to y'all!
  Related Links
 ·   Articles on Konqueror
 ·   Also by Gr8teful
 ·   Contact author

Thread Threshold:

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

So as to make my post more complete...
by Gr8teful on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @13:52
www.monark.com.br, click on "Produtos" and after a new page loads, click on words beside red arrows on the left. Expanded submenus only appear in Konqueror.

I'm not affiliated with such company.
[ Reply To This | View ]
  • Re: So as to make my post more complete...
    by timecop on Saturday 11/Sep/2004, @20:30
    The website works great in Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1, which is what it was designed for, I am 100% sure.
    Who the fuck cares what it looks like on a web browser running on a dead os that *NOBODY* uses.
    [ Reply To This | View ]
    • Re: So as to make my post more complete...
      by Matt on Sunday 12/Sep/2004, @04:17
      Never feed the trolls & all that, but still...

      First: the usage of a webbrowser for a given website is never 100% IE6. So the $$$ question should come to mind: which of my customers am I p*ss*ng off?

      Second: be careful if you target an academic audience or certain other large organisations. Chances are that the people there are still forced to use Netscape 4.7 on an NT4 system or something.

      As long as websites are still not build using 100% standard code, choice is good.

      'nough said.
      [ Reply To This | View ]
    • Re: So as to make my post more complete...
      by David on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @13:36
      Why post to this site?
      [ Reply To This | View ]
Re: Don't take me wrong but...
by David on Monday 13/Sep/2004, @11:29
You make a good point. I was with a group of Mac users last weekend. One worked for Apple, one for a major ISP, and one for a law firm. All used both Camino and Safari. All said that there were some sites Camino could render and Safari not, and others that Safari could render and Camino not.

And all agreed that they preferred Safari.
[ Reply To This | View ]
The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
  "Never miss an opportunity to throw away code." -- Guillaume Laurent
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.
[ home | post article | flat forty | subscribe | search | rdf ]