Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 4th Feb 2007 20:36 UTC, submitted by diegocg
KDE "As one of our readers has pointed out to us, the latest (3.5.6) release of the KHTML rendering engine passes all of the tests in our CSS selector testsuite - making the Konqueror 3.5.6 browser the most CSS3-compatible of all. Also in the latest release is the implementation of text-overflow: ellipsis. It really is a shame that only a tiny proportion of web users have access to this excellent browser."
Order by: Score:
Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):
by Buck on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:23 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

From the 43 selectors 21 have passed, 7 are buggy and 15 are unsupported (Passed 336 out of 578 tests)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):
by CaptainPinko on Sun 4th Feb 2007 23:17 UTC in reply to "Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

IE7 on XP

From the 43 selectors 13 have passed, 4 are buggy and 26 are unsupported (Passed 330 out of 578 tests)

I'd love to see IE 6 and IE 5.5 numbers as well

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):
by corsaire on Mon 5th Feb 2007 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):"
corsaire Member since:
2006-05-15

IE6 on XP: From the 43 selectors 10 have passed, 1 are buggy and 32 are unsupported (Passed 276 out of 578 tests)

Not much of a surprise here ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):
by stestagg on Mon 5th Feb 2007 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

IE 5.5 On Windows 2000 (test machine):

The test script never ran.

Reply Score: 2

Firefox 2.0
by igeeo on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:35 UTC
igeeo
Member since:
2006-09-13

From the 43 selectors 26 have passed, 10 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 357 out of 578 tests)

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0

Reply Score: 2

Minefield (Firefox 3) nightly
by xfranky on Sun 4th Feb 2007 22:11 UTC in reply to "Firefox 2.0"
xfranky Member since:
2006-09-19

From the 43 selectors 32 have passed, 4 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 369 out of 578 tests)

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a2pre) Gecko/20070204 Minefield/3.0a2pre

Reply Score: 3

Konq rooles! :-D
by JamesTRexx on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:36 UTC
JamesTRexx
Member since:
2005-11-06

Of the three browsers I'm using daily, IE, Firefox and Konqueror I enjoy the last one best.
I find the keyboard navigation between tabs the best, and of course it looks better with KDE.
Another reason why I'm going to try KDE on Windows as soon as it's ported. :-)
Too bad there are some sites I often use (deviantart.com) that are not completely compatible with Konq.

Reply Score: 4

Opera
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:40 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

From the 43 selectors 25 have passed, 3 are buggy and 15 are unsupported (Passed 346 out of 578 tests)

Opera/9.10 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en)

Reply Score: 1

Internet Explorer 7
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:42 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

From the 43 selectors 13 have passed, 4 are buggy and 26 are unsupported (Passed 330 out of 578 tests)

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)

Reply Score: 1

Webkit nightly
by pnaro on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:42 UTC
pnaro
Member since:
2006-04-16

The webkit nightly release ...
From the 43 selectors 25 have passed, 9 are buggy and 9 are unsupported (Passed 355 out of 578 tests)

Reply Score: 3

Konqueror 3.5.6
by TheMonoTone on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:49 UTC
TheMonoTone
Member since:
2006-01-01

From the 43 selectors 43 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 578 out of 578 tests)

Great work! I've always liked konqueror. Its fast even on my old and crappy p3 500. Firefox doesn't even compare in terms of speed on old hardware like that. To top it off it seems khtml constantly fixes and adds standards support. Great work KHTML devs, I really do think you guys are producing the best rendering engine out there.

Reply Score: 5

Great for CSS. Go for Javascript
by getaceres on Sun 4th Feb 2007 21:55 UTC
getaceres
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've always liked Konqueror and it's great to be the first in supporting CSS correctly but I don't use it normally because it's extremely slow when using GMail and Google News and also some Web 2.0 sites doesn't render correctly. I hope the next step is to optimize the Javascript machine.

Reply Score: 5

tsuraan Member since:
2006-01-16

I definitely can't argue about konq lacking in the JavaScript department, but I actually really like the gmail pure-html implementation. If it weren't for the annoying banner at the top telling me to use a better browser, I'd have no complaints about it at all. It's a really nice web page, IMHO.

Reply Score: 2

getaceres Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not only GMail, but most of the Web 2.0 sites that don't work with Konqueror.

Reply Score: 1

superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

yeah, i HATE the non-html version of gmail. i can't open emails in tabs, which is very annoying... ;)

Reply Score: 3

favorite browser
by re_re on Sun 4th Feb 2007 22:20 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

Konqueror is without a doubt my favorite browser, there are a few websites that I need to use Firefox for but the vast majority of the time Konqueror is fast and efficient.

I also might add, I like it as a file manager to.

If they ever port Konqueror to windows and maintain it's level of functionality I would likely install it on my Windows box, and the same goes for my Mac.

Reply Score: 4

RE: favorite browser
by DevL on Mon 5th Feb 2007 08:04 UTC in reply to "favorite browser"
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"If they ever port Konqueror to windows and maintain it's level of functionality I would likely install it on my Windows box, and the same goes for my Mac."

On the Mac, the closest you can get (unless running KDE in X11 of course) is Safari/WebKit as its based on the same rendering engine (KHTML) as Konqueror.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: favorite browser
by nivanson on Mon 5th Feb 2007 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE: favorite browser"
nivanson Member since:
2006-07-13

It's based on yeah. Far derived though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: favorite browser
by superstoned on Mon 5th Feb 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: favorite browser"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

but they might merge again for KDE 4...

Reply Score: 2

Konqueror
by SlackerJack on Sun 4th Feb 2007 22:54 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Is a real nice browser, but I found it's not compatible with Picasa Web for uploading photos.

Reply Score: 1

gmail
by schala on Sun 4th Feb 2007 23:00 UTC
schala
Member since:
2006-01-17

Konqueror would be my favorite browser, if not for the fact that its JavaScript support is very buggy. Something as simple as the homepage on boston.com won't render properly in Konqueror, let alone GMail or other complicated Web 2.0 apps.

Improve JavaScript, guys! I like Konqueror better than Firefox on every other count. Font support on Firefox on Linux is just so bad...

Reply Score: 1

RE: gmail
by zsitvaij on Sun 4th Feb 2007 23:10 UTC in reply to "gmail"
zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14
RE[2]: gmail
by schala on Sun 4th Feb 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE: gmail"
schala Member since:
2006-01-17

I don't mean "render properly" so much as "work properly". Gmail is much slower in Konqueror than Firefox (especially considering that Konqueror is normally much faster for everything else), and I will routinely get "Oops! This page is broken" errors. That doesn't meet my standard for "usable".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: gmail
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Feb 2007 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: gmail"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

" That doesn't meet my standard for "usable"."
Yeah, I would have expected Google to make it usable.

Reply Score: 2

Hrm
by CowMan on Sun 4th Feb 2007 23:35 UTC
CowMan
Member since:
2006-09-26

Hope Opera picks this up for version 10, no need to be 2nd-string on standards here.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hrm
by hal2k1 on Mon 5th Feb 2007 02:13 UTC in reply to "Hrm"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Hope Opera picks this up for version 10, no need to be 2nd-string on standards here.//

Opera isn't 2nd-string, it is 3rd-string.

It sits behind Konqueror and Firefox (both Firefox 2 and Firefox 3).

IE6 appears to be the most behind, and IE7 is next-to-last.

Edited 2007-02-05 02:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hrm
by CowMan on Mon 5th Feb 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Hrm"
CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

You, sir, have ruined me. CSS3 no longer exists in my world, I'm sticking with the ACID2 test.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hrm
by vegai on Mon 5th Feb 2007 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Hrm"
vegai Member since:
2005-12-25

No, Opera is actually more standard-compliant than Firefox, at least version 2. Perhaps they can fix it somewhat in the next version.

Third string is actually a little miracle test browser called hv3: http://tkhtml.tcl.tk/hv3.html. Firefox is 4th!

And IE... hehehhehhehehhehehhehehhhehhehehhehe.

Reply Score: 1

those who complain
by Redeeman on Sun 4th Feb 2007 23:51 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

should not complain about the browser, but the sites themselves. in more than 99% of the cases where pages does not render correctly, it is not a bug in the browser, but the site.

for example the google sites, if you set your user agent to gecko, it works very good.

Reply Score: 4

bit Off-topic: KDE4.0
by kloty on Mon 5th Feb 2007 00:32 UTC
kloty
Member since:
2005-07-07

Hi there,

I really cannot await till KDE4.0 for Windows, Mac and all UNIX flavours will appear. Finally everybody can use very competitive set of programs, which are needed every day, and they will be totaly compatible across all desktop computer platforms. So the developers can concentrate on developing platform specific programs, which really suit to this particular platform. I mean we already have cross-platform software like Openoffice and Firefox, but they all have special technics to archieve portability, which differ from one program to another. Now we will have an entire set of programs build on the same foundation, which is cross-platform already. KDE4.0 with QT as fundament is delivering something, JAVA was promising, but never fullfilling.

Reply Score: 2

RE: bit Off-topic: KDE4.0
by kaiwai on Mon 5th Feb 2007 08:19 UTC in reply to "bit Off-topic: KDE4.0"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You're right about Java, it was unfortunately and over hyped, over promised, but undelivered; The better solution to portability is to make it native but at the same time, ensuring it doesn't rely too heavily on operating system native features.

For me, I'm excited about FreeBSD + Intel 3945ABG Support + KDE 4.0 + Xorg 7.x support ;) Once that is all alligned, I can assure yuo I'll be a very happy camper indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: bit Off-topic: KDE4.0
by segedunum on Mon 5th Feb 2007 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE: bit Off-topic: KDE4.0"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You're right about Java, it was unfortunately and over hyped, over promised, but undelivered; The better solution to portability is to make it native but at the same time, ensuring it doesn't rely too heavily on operating system native features.

Java is good for many things, particularly from a server point of view and the VM is useful, but they got the client side cross platform side of things woefully wrong.

What Qt got right was the balance between taking into account the native look and feel of applications in each OS environment, whilst not getting into the silliness and huge maintenance and bug curve of implementing everything natively on every platform. This ensures that applications can fit in with different environments, but maintain their integrity between platforms with far less effort. Qt does this via emulation.

If you don't believe me just create a moderately complex user interface with Eclipse and SWT, or wxWidgets, and see what happens. Additionally, look into SWT's Bugzilla database.

Reply Score: 5

Yay for a great browser!
by B. Janssen on Mon 5th Feb 2007 00:33 UTC
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

Unfortunatly the separation from the file manager leaves me wanting -- esp. in the bookmarks and context menu department. So i remain, mumbling "less is more, less is more..." ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Love konq
by zombie process on Mon 5th Feb 2007 00:48 UTC
zombie process
Member since:
2005-07-08

It's bar none my favorite file browser and web browser. I guess I don't do much on the javascript sites people are talking about since I don't seem to have these issues. Yes, there are some sites I need to use firefox to render, though 99% of these are asshat sites that refuse to let you look at their content unless you use ie6+ or firefox.

Reply Score: 1

SeaMonkey "Nightly" build
by Siamhie on Mon 5th Feb 2007 04:03 UTC
Siamhie
Member since:
2007-02-05

From the 43 selectors 32 have passed, 4 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 369 out of 578 tests)

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061118 SeaMonkey/1.5a


On a side note, I fired up Konqueror 3.5.4

From the 43 selectors 37 have passed, 6 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 570 out of 578 tests)



Looks like my little monkeys need to be feed.

Reply Score: 1

RE: SeaMonkey "Nightly" build
by superstoned on Mon 5th Feb 2007 14:46 UTC in reply to "SeaMonkey "Nightly" build"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

so konqi 3.5.4 from some months ago is still better than a nigthly build of SeaMonkey ;-)

well, doesn't say too much of course, as the konq dev's might just have focussed on this testsuite.

Reply Score: 2

OmniWeb 5.5.3 (v607.14)
by aesiamun on Mon 5th Feb 2007 04:34 UTC
aesiamun
Member since:
2005-06-29

From the 43 selectors 25 have passed, 8 are buggy and 10 are unsupported (Passed 352 out of 578 tests)

Reply Score: 1

Konqueror and Javascript
by llanitedave on Mon 5th Feb 2007 04:47 UTC
llanitedave
Member since:
2005-07-24

I haven't noticed any actual bug in javascript on Konqueror, but then my javascript is pretty basic. I HAVE noticed that the javascript engine on Konqueror is slower than Firefox, but slightly faster than Safari.

I prefer Javascript on Firefox, and I prefer developing on Firefox. As far as actual day-to-day usage, though, I really like Konqueror.

Reply Score: 1

IE 5 results
by vermaden on Mon 5th Feb 2007 06:18 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)

http://vermaden.proplayer.pl/gfx/screenshots/vermaden-ie5-css3-0.pn...
http://vermaden.proplayer.pl/gfx/screenshots/vermaden-ie5-css3-1.pn...

Like You see I cant even paste You the results ...

Reply Score: 2

Question about CSS
by raynevandunem on Mon 5th Feb 2007 07:54 UTC
raynevandunem
Member since:
2006-11-24

I've read Wikipedia's comparisons of HTML layout engines in the CSS category. However, as they have separate engines for each particular feature of the browser (a Javascript engine, an SVG engine, and so on), I happened to notice that most major browsers don't have a separate CSS engine. Why is that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question about CSS
by B. Janssen on Mon 5th Feb 2007 11:43 UTC in reply to "Question about CSS"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

raynevandunem: I happened to notice that most major browsers don't have a separate CSS engine. Why is that?

CSS is not distinct from markup, thus no distinct engine. For more information, see here:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/

Reply Score: 2

IE6
by karolus on Mon 5th Feb 2007 10:52 UTC
karolus
Member since:
2006-06-13

From the 43 selectors 8 have passed, 1 are buggy and 34 are unsupported (Passed 274 out of 578 tests)


shhh....

Reply Score: 1

RE: IE6
by sappyvcv on Mon 5th Feb 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "IE6"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Pretty good for a browser that came out almost 6 years ago.

Reply Score: 2

Cool
by Darkelve on Mon 5th Feb 2007 11:28 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

Even though I'm using oSuse10.2&KDE&Firefox, it's nice to see all the work the Konqueror folks must've done on this.

Good work Konqueror people!

Reply Score: 2

project unity?
by MamiyaOtaru on Mon 5th Feb 2007 13:41 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

News like this makes me hope no one goes through with changing Konqueror from KHTML to Webkit (not by default anyway). KHTML is doing just fine, thanks!

Reply Score: 2

RE: project unity?
by superstoned on Mon 5th Feb 2007 14:49 UTC in reply to "project unity?"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, coöperation would be good, right? If both teams would work on the same codebase? I don't see what's wrong with that. Of course, the current WebKit dev's must allow the KDE/Khtml dev's enough freedom so they can work as good as with their own code, and there is some porting to do - so after all, it might not be the way to go. As long as the choice is sensible & rational and not political, I don't care...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: project unity?
by elsewhere on Mon 5th Feb 2007 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: project unity?"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Of course, the current WebKit dev's must allow the KDE/Khtml dev's enough freedom so they can work as good as with their own code

Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the projects will eventually converge. Right now there is some good co-operation going on between khtml/webkit but there was always an underlying concern that Apple's leadership of the project would risk tying KDE to Apple's design goals/objectives/timelines for OSX.

But with webkit being adopted by both Nokia and Adobe for their next-gen browser tech, it might be time to look at neutral/impartial collaboration. Those two companies will give webkit a far bigger footprint than KDE or Apple could do on their own, which will lead to better standards support from web designers as we saw when Firefox began gaining ground.

KDE4.0 will, at this point I imagine, be khtml with a possible optional webkit, but down the road, who knows...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Safari 2.0.4 (419.3):
by tantalic on Mon 5th Feb 2007 16:39 UTC
tantalic
Member since:
2005-07-06

From the 43 selectors 25 have passed, 8 are buggy and 10 are unsupported (Passed 352 out of 578 tests)

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko, Safari/420) OmniWeb/v607.14

Reply Score: 1

Konqueror 3.5.5 (KDE 3.5.5)
by Punktyras on Mon 5th Feb 2007 16:59 UTC
Punktyras
Member since:
2006-01-07

From the 43 selectors 37 have passed, 6 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 570 out of 578 tests)

Reply Score: 1