faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Gecko rendering better ?!
by Samuel on Thursday 07/Oct/2004, @01:34
|
Being a webmaster myself I believe I have the expertise to tell about the quality of rendering. Stating the KHTML renders better then Gecko is only proof that you have never created a CSS-based site for KHTML. They still have *way* to go before the CSS engine will become really useful.
It took us *weeks* to find workarounds for KHTML's weaknesses. You can not seriously state that KHTML renders better then Gecko. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Gecko rendering better ?!
by Anders on Thursday 07/Oct/2004, @01:57
|
Well, what I mean is that what I see on my screen looks better using konqueror.
I'm using mozilla right now, and the drawing (is that a better term than rendering then) is terrible.
I se only very few sites where konqueror falls short due to CSS, but maybe my browsing is too limited. I have never had any problems myself though, with the relatively simple sayout that I like.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Gecko rendering better ?!
by Jon Ingram on Thursday 07/Oct/2004, @04:44
|
There are several fairly simple CSS rendering bugs with Konq.
As one example, there's a fairly obvious bug which you can see on many pages that use absolutely positioned elements (yes, it's in the bug reporting system, and has been for a year or so). I use these to implement page-number sidenotes on all the HTML editions of Project Gutenberg texts which I produce. As a result of Konq's flaws, these are much less readable in Konq than in any other modern browser.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|