218

It's great to have Konqi (based on the KHTML engine), but I believe that most KDE users are still using Firefox.

I therefore propose to provide a KDE browser based on the Gecko or Webkit engine, that exploits the inertia that the Mozilla Foundation or corporations like Google, Nokia and Apple put behind these projects, rather than using too many resources on KHTML.

I would love to see a QT-based Firefox, that doesn't annoy me with the GNOME file dialog every day. If mozilla doesn't bother releasing a QT version, maybe the KDE team can.

Someone is already working on a webkit plugin for konqueror and someone else is working on a separate dedicated webkit browser for KDE.

TheBlackCat wrote:Someone is already working on a webkit plugin for konqueror and someone else is working on a separate dedicated webkit browser for KDE.

Glad to hear. I think KDE should make this a top priority.

Try arora and rekonq.

These are 2 relatively fresh qt browsers based on webkit

Yup, there is Arora (Qt only), rekonq (with KDE integration) and (currently inactive, it seems) Foxkit. Of course, a finished KPart to display in Konqueror itself would be ideal, but for now, everyone who wants a WebKit based browser can have one.

I think the problem hereby is not so much the rendering engine, but the "standards" it stands behind compared to the "standards" that fulfill web sites. I like the variety of browsers and I like Konqueror as a fast because KDE-integrated solution. It starts up faster than Firefox in each case.

On the other hand, day by day surfing through web sites there can be found many sites which have display/rendering problems in KHTML. Some are home-brewed by Konqueror and can be fixed (as the Konqueror Netscape plugin support - Flash player rendering problems, for instance), on the other hand I know that many web site creators test their sites only with mainstream browsers, IE, FF, Opera, maybe Safari.

For practical reasons, I use Firefox very often because of its "compatibility" to the most web sites and would appreciate one engine web site developers can compare their solution against, if they don't want to compare it using an official verification of several standards.
As an idealist, I would like to keep KHTML as an alternative for users and creative developers. And I won't like to throw aboard KHTML, but hoping for better times.

I've read also about an alpha version of Firefox for Qt ( http://browser.garage.maemo.org/news/10/ ), maybe this will be the choice for you once it will be stable

The Webkit KPart works mostly, except it isn't too stable and flash doesn't work yet. GMail is also broken in it ( Can't reach GMail error )

I don't think we should drop KHTML entirely, but rather set the default KDE browser/rendering engine to something mainstream to reduce the number of glitches encountered by the end-user, no matter who is ultimately responsible (mostly website developers, probably). In particular, I would like to see a well tested and rock-solid integration of flash into linux browsers (this still caused problems, even with firefox!).

I know there are many choices out there, and tech-savvy folks will be able to install the browser of their choice - I just think the default should cause as few annoyances as possible.

I am in favour of further developing Konqueror because I like the interface for pretty well all the work I do; it is uncluttered and it is really easy to download a file to a particular folder compared with Firefox; I have only found a couple of sites which I use for my business which it cannot handle. It has no problem with my Internet bank.

Bear in mind that KHTML can't be abandoned for the whole life of KDE 4.x, due to the nature of kdelibs (API stability, for example).

f33l wrote:It's great to have Konqi (based on the KHTML engine), but I believe that most KDE users are still using Firefox.

I therefore propose to provide a KDE browser based on the Gecko or Webkit engine, that exploits the inertia that the Mozilla Foundation or corporations like Google, Nokia and Apple put behind these projects, rather than using too many resources on KHTML.

I would love to see a QT-based Firefox, that doesn't annoy me with the GNOME file dialog every day. If mozilla doesn't bother releasing a QT version, maybe the KDE team can.

My apologies to the KHTML devs, but 4 rendering engines are enough, web developers are probably only testing for Gecko, WebKit, and Trident. What ever we need from KHTML needs to be merged back into WebKit and be done with.

I think KHTML did - very well - its job being the "father" of Webkit, and it's not going to do much more.

For me, rest in peace, KHTML.

qt has webkit and will be good to integrate this HTML engine with whole kde apps.
More power to improve konqeror! WebKit HTML Engine is good enought.
KHTML whould be merged with WebKit (or WebKit with KHTML )

pembo13 wrote:My apologies to the KHTML devs, but 4 rendering engines are enough, web developers are probably only testing for Gecko, WebKit, and Trident. What ever we need from KHTML needs to be merged back into WebKit and be done with.

Why? Changing the official rendering engine of Konqueror from KHTML to webkit isn't going to change much, if anything. If the site is designed properly, KHTML will render it properly. If the site isn't, it's not going to check what rendering engine the browser is using. It's going to check for what the browser claims to be. Gmail is a prime example of that. It works neither better or worse depending on khtml/webkit. It does, however, work better if you set konqueror to falsely identify itself as something it is not.

Kryten2X4B wrote:Why? Changing the official rendering engine of Konqueror from KHTML to webkit isn't going to change much

Seeing as Chrome works better than Konqueror on most sites, I would hope that it would make Konqueror a more viable browser.

Kryten2X4B wrote:if anything. If the site is designed properly, KHTML will render it properly.

Either this is not currently the case or most websites are designed poorly.

Kryten2X4B wrote:If the site isn't, it's not going to check what rendering engine the browser is using. It's going to check for what the browser claims to be. Gmail is a prime example of that. It works neither better or worse depending on khtml/webkit

Are you saying that Gmail doesn't work in Safari or Chrome?

Kryten2X4B wrote:It does, however, work better if you set konqueror to falsely identify itself as something it is not.

Not the last few times I tried. Will try again. Every time I've tried, it simply does not work properly in Konqueror. Regardless of how poorly Gmail may be designed, it is usable in other browsers with full features.