Massive Konqueror Regression

[Luke-Jr]

On Thursday 18 August 2005 21:27, you wrote:
> Luke-Jr wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 August 2005 16:35, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> >>In rhetoric, this is called a "Straw Man".  Yes, you have defeated the
> >>Straw Man.  But I am not suggesting that a test suite be written to test
> >>all "broken webpages on the net".
> > You must be, since all non-broken webpages are, as far as I have seen,
> > working great-- better than any other browser, at least.
> I use Konqueror as my standard web browser.  However form time to time I
> do find a webpage which does not work with Konqueror.  I then try
> Firefox.  In almost all cases the "broken" webpage works with Firefox.

Yes, FireFox may handle broken webpages more user-friendly... but it fails on 
many standards-compliant webpages and does not follow the standard render 
functionality for broken webpages (the standards dictate how some broken 
webpages should appear). Konqueror, on the other hand, passes the ACID2 test 
and thus should (in theory) support all CSS1/2.

> >>I am suggesting that we need to write a test suite that includes
> >>unauthorized MicroSoft extensions.
> > I am saying webpages should be chastised for using non-standard stuff
> > without a fallback.
> I totally agree with this and I do sent notes to webmasters telling them
> that their webpages are broken because they do not pass W3C
> verification.  However, it does not solve the issue since users expect
> that Konqueror should be just as able to display webpages with
> non-standard HTML and ECMA script as Firefox is.

Then users expect too much. If FireFox did not have some strengths, then it 
would have no purpose at all.

> >>>>>GCC, now that it has become the #1 compiler, has begun to be
> >>>>>stricter and refuses to compile bad code.
> >>>>Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.  A compiler
> >>>>validation suite is only to test that correct code is compiled
> >>>>correctly.  A compiler can support extensions and still run the
> >>>>validation suite correctly.
> >>>The problem isn't extensions, but invalid or bad code.
> >>Taking one word out of a sentence and saying something different about
> >>it means little.  A validation suite does not test a compiler for
> >>detecting incorrect code, it it was, compilers which recognize
> >>extensions might fail the test.
> > No, because extensions can still be valid code. Code should never depend
> > on extensions, though...
> With some programing languages and some uses (parallel processor super
> computers for example) extensions to programing languages are needed and
> should be used.

But such a program should still be able to compile and run without 
extensions-- you just wouldn't have the features that require such.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-quality/attachments/20050819/6d3bbe34/attachment.pgp