adawit at kde.org
Sun Feb 21 07:35:42 GMT 2010
On Saturday 20 February 2010 18:39:14 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Saturday 20 February 2010, 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
> Konqueror has a feature called profiles. This is not used enough. Using
> profiles you can change the behaviour and look of konqueror without writing
> a new application from scratch. Maybe, we should get this hooked up to
> get-new- stuff.
> > 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.
> Konqueror has no rendering engine, it uses kparts and can use webkit as
> well as khtml. Right now khtml is still working better than webkitpart on
> most pages, but webkitpart is improving very fast at the moment.
Huh ? Examples please ? Here is one where khtml does not work:
Does that mean I can make the same claims you are making right here ?!?!?
> Integration will never reach the same level though.
Nonsense! Again, I have no idea what you base this on ? What integration are
you saying will never be on equal footing ??!? Simply making blank statements
does not make it so...
More information about the kde-core-devel