Re: Awesome new Mozilla roadmap!

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 14:20, 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.

Can you backup these numbers?  I can easily enough throw out some of my
own: 90% of web pages cause KHTML to crash and KDE to delete your
harddrive, while 125% of web pages operate perfectly in lynx.  ;-)  I
believe yours are a little more reality based, but "most" and "30%" seem
incredibly large given the amount of problems I've never had....

> 
> | 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.

(Not from personal experience, but sister and two friends--)

KHTML-based Safari chokes on a lot of pages, in which Mozilla renders
perfectly.  The only pages Mozilla doesn't handle fine KHTML chokes on
as well (possibly in different ways).  The *only* browser that handles
those pages is IE - it never has to guess how to emulate its own bugs
;-)

Is there anywhere that lists known sites KHTML can handle that Mozilla
cannot?  I know Mozilla tracks pages it fails on (for bug-fixing and
evangelism purposes).  It would be interesting to view a) whether these
are real sites, or crap thrown together by a 10-year-old kid on yahoo,
b) whether Mozilla.org is aware these sites are unfunctioning in
Mozilla, and c) if the site authors are up to at least getting Mozilla
to work with their site, if not 100% prettiness.

> 
> |
> |  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

Depends also on what you mean by IE designed.  IE supports standards,
quite a few of them, and Windows/IE-only authors can easily enough make
pages that view perfectly fine in Mozilla/KHTML.

It's only the people that use the (quite old) IE-hacks, and rely on them
100% with no room for proper fallback.  Why you'd use those sites is
beyond me... (image, if an e-commerce site cannot manage a proper
webpage, are you going to trust your credit card info to the morons as
well?)

> 
> |
> |  > 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.

I've seen plenty of heavy-duty-advanced sites that all work fine in
Mozilla.  Where do you get this impression that Mozilla cannot even
handle basic layout from?

> 
> |
> |  > 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
> 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.

/me looks at his stack of Mozilla printouts used during web-design and
consultation, from pre-1.3 even.

What?

If KHTML somehow *does* do better, that is cool.  Mozilla is light-years
ahead of IE for sure when it comes to printing, and definitely works
well enough for "professional usage."