The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Webkit?
by sebas on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @14:49
|
Right now, the KPart that uses webkit for Konqueror is not ready for consumption. It's somewhere in playground/. Until that one is ready, KHTML will stay Konqueror's default engine for sure. We'll see what happens afterwards, in the end the user will be able to decide.
Webkit is used in Plasma, though, for example for OS X Dashboard widget support.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by Ian Monroe on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @16:01
|
And just to clarify sebas's comment, KDE won't have WebKit at all until KDE 4.1, when it starts to depend on the (still unreleased) Qt 4.4.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by Iuri Fiedoruk on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @05:04
|
>in the end the user will be able to decide
Once I have a webkit part, bye-bye firefox (yeah, because right now khtml does match my needs).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Webkit?
by SadEagle on Wednesday 02/Apr/2008, @19:03
|
You were misled
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by hmmm on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @02:20
|
You know, I really admire you KHTML guys to keep chugging on despite the ignorance and negativity.
And for giving us such a wonderful HTML engine cum working complete kpart.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by ad on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @04:06
|
Yeap, thanks for your work and your patience! :)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: Webkit?
by Segedunum on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @07:18
|
"I thought KDE was going to switch to Webkit for Konq? Or was that only for plasmoids?"
That all depends on what engine the vast majority of developers want to use, and what applications that vast majority of users want to use. That's the direction things will naturally head in, and the bottom line is if WebKit provides better day-to-day web browsing than KHTML, with bug-for-bug compatibility with Safari being useful, then that's what people will use. Alas, web developers are not going to change and are not going to test with KHTML - just as they have never done.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by S. on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @10:31
|
> bug-for-bug compatibility with Safari
QtWebKit is not WebKit and does not provide Safari compatibility. Saying such a thing is not even a joke, it is a fraud.
In order to build a webkit backend, developers have to fill hundreds of undocumented stubs with a non-trivial meaning, especially for people who are very new to the internals.
Each one of this stub is an occasion for a new bug, or for a missing feature when left unimplemented.
So on the surface, you have a working engine, as regression tests allow you to check that you match the very basics - but at every corner things will fail, because of poorly understood limit conditions and undocumented requirements, or because of vastly different under-pinnings, different network layer exhibiting undiscovered race-conditions in CSS loading, whatever.
Hell, I can already single out QtWebKit with a goddam *CSS* statement because of such bugs. That's just ridiculous.
The only people able to build a fully working backend with WebKit, are the Apple developers, that have full knowledge of the code base - it will always be so, and that's exactly how Apple likes it:
Free advertisement, mind share, and competitors under tight dependance.
But anyway, you just have to try the demo browser for 5 minutes to realize that : a web browser is much, much more than just a rendering engine.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by Segedunum on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @13:03
|
"QtWebKit is not WebKit and does not provide Safari compatibility. Saying such a thing is not even a joke, it is a fraud."
I know certain people like to go around perpetuating this impression for their own ends, but this is false. WebKit, and henceforth QtWebKit, opens the door very much for bug-for-bug Safari compatibility and between other WebKit browsers to create a bigger target for web developers. This counts for a lot, because no web developer is going to change their ways and start testing with KHTML this side of the next ice age. As you say elsewhere, there are corner cases to every web rendering engine, and that's why KDE is still devoid of a native browser people can count on.
"In order to build a webkit backend, developers have to fill hundreds of undocumented stubs with a non-trivial meaning, especially for people who are very new to the internals.
Each one of this stub is an occasion for a new bug......."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, it's too difficult. We get the picture. Taking the above, why do you think most KDE users use Firefox rather than Konqueror?
"The only people able to build a fully working backend with WebKit, are the Apple developers, that have full knowledge of the code base - it will always be so, and that's exactly how Apple likes it"
The source code for WebKit is there. It's taken a while to get there, but it is there, Trolltech are using it in Qt and devoting lots of resources to it, as are Nokia, Apple of course and lots of others. Economies of scale are always better.
Repeating the above is not going to make this true, but my main point still stands - if a QtWebKit based browser renders the vast majority of web sites people visit better then KHTML, people will use the WebKit based browser. That's the way it is.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by Morty on Thursday 03/Apr/2008, @14:10
|
KHTML or WebKit does it really matter? Most web developers seem to test for browser not engine. And that would still be Konqueror.
For the record, in my browsing I have minimal need for other browsers. The few sites I wistit where Konqueror/KHTML is not up to the task, usually works when changing browser identification. Not that I have any strong feelings either way when it comes to WebKit, but I doubt it will revolutionize my browsing experience.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by Grósz Dániel on Friday 04/Apr/2008, @13:28
|
"KHTML or WebKit does it really matter?"
It does because if we use QtWebKit, (even if it is not absolutely compatible with the Safari WebKit) the websites tested in Safary will be likely to work in Konqueror as well, and Safari has much bigger market share than Konqueror.
I think Konqueror should be rewritten (in the same powerful but more flexible way) because developers often say that Konqueror code is such a mess that adding even small features is painful. If KHTML improves (as it continually does) and a decent web browser based on it is written that runs on Windows and Mac OS X as well, it could enter the browser war and gain enough market share to be noticed by website developers.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Webkit?
by Morty on Friday 04/Apr/2008, @15:32
|
"the websites tested in Safary will be likely to work in Konqueror as well"
That may be, but the waste majority of sites I see that Konqueror has serious problems works when changing user agent. It's not the testing by web developers and the rendering of KHTML that is the issue, so changing to WebKit will not change this.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
