Rekonq default

Eike Hein hein at
Sat Feb 20 15:46:40 GMT 2010

On 02/20/2010 03:43 PM, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> 1. userinterface
> the GUI of rekonq is more optimized for webbrowsing. it is simpler and more to 
> the point of using the web. But also has advanced features like the speed dial 
> or previews for tabs. I think it has a better GUI for most users compared with 
> konqueror

Its user interface also strays far from the path established
by our other standard applications and the HIG. You're going
to have to make a good case for why our interface standards
are not supposed to apply to our default web browser.

> 2. rendering engine
> rekonq is using webkit which renders modern websites better than khtml. webkit 
> is moving forward really fast at the moment. It is in fact the leading 
> rendering engine if you look at HTML5 compliance or speed. We should benefit 
> from that. 

The rendering engine is irrelevant. WebKit can also be used
in Konqueror. KHTML, on the other hand - an important compo-
nent of the KDE Platform - presently cannot be used in Re-
konq, as far as I know. For me that puts Konqueror ahead of
Rekonq in the "rendering engine" department: It can use both

> What do you think?

I think that web browsers are hard. Web browsers have a
very long tail of edge cases they need to handle well,
and I'm not talking about the rendering engine. Accumu-
lating solutions for these edge cases takes years. While
other people may see a problem in the age of the Kon-
queror codebase, in truth it represents tremendous value
that we shouldn't throw away. Not to mention the many
features Konqueror currently has that Rekonq doesn't
have, many of which would likely have to be added back
on user demand down the line - it's a duplication of

If we're unhappy with Konqueror's state, then we should
renew our investment of time and effort in Konqueror
and shape it into what we need it to be.

> Cheers
> Frank

Best regards,
Eike Hein

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list