Re: Awesome new Mozilla roadmap!

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 19:20, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 April 2003 02:07, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> |  On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 21:12, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |  > KDE does it because KDE *can* deliver first-class browser.
> |  > AFAIK, it's the best browser on the market, if you count both
> |  > standards-compatibility and ability to render pages designed for MS IE.
> |
> |  Some anecdotal evidence: I've used Safari on a Mac, and there are some
> |  pages that are _not_ rendered correctly. They are edge cases, although
> |  it can occasionally make a site unusable. I have not come across any
> |  pages Mozilla could not render for a long time. 
> 
> Try any page designed with document.all DHTML model, and you will see the 
> difference.
> To give an idea, most pages designed for MS IE4, and about 30% of pages 
> designed for MS IE5 would fail with Mozilla.
> 
> | khtml gives the
> |  impression of being where mozilla was about 8 months ago.
> 
> Wrong.  Mozilla is ages behind KHTML.
> It seems you just don't have any facts to support your words, and prefer to 
> give unsupported statements.
> 

Give me an empirical test to run and I will.

The fact is that one browser (Mozilla) renders every page flawlessly for
day-to-day browsing - including ones designed for IE - and one fails a
small amount of the time (khtml). Albeit not very often.

If you want to write a higgy browser using khtml, I'd love to test it.
Otherwise, why is this conversation/comparison relevant?

> |
> |  A lot of the Mozilla code is cludge to make IE-designed pages render
> |  properly - khtml is not the only browser that has to do this.
> 
> Really?..  I have tried Mozilla 1.2, and haven't noticied something like this.
> It can be that support for IE-designed pages was introduced in 1.3
> 
> |
> |  > On the other hand, Mozilla team can't deliver good browser even after 5
> |  > years of work.
> |
> |  Try www.mozilla.org :-)
> 
> And?... Very ugly site.
> Try W3C CSS page, and you will see the difference between Mozilla and 
> Konqueror/KHTML.
> 
> |
> |  > So, it's rather stupid to discuss wether GNOME should have Galeon or
> |  > Epiphany.
> |  > If you want nice GNOME - than GNOME *should not* have Gecko-based
> |  > browser!
> |
> |  Apart from gecko is a good rendering engine, at least equal to khtml for
> |  rendering complex web pages. (khtml may have an edge for simple webpages
> |  in yelp/devhelp etc.)
> 
> Ok, may be Gecko catched up with KHTML in 1.3

Yeah, because that's the engine that needed to catch up. </sarcasm>

> But not for printing.
> Try to print out any web page with fonts different from Arial/Times New Roman.
> Mozilla even can't  embed fonts, not speaking about more advanced printing 
> features.

Possibly, I don't print web pages.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp