faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
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. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
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)
