Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Aug 2008 00:10 UTC, submitted by superstoned
Thread beginning with comment 326675
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
WebKit is a fine piece of code and a great engine. It actually puts Gecko to shame, as far as the code and engineering goes, and it easily matches Gecko for rendering accuracy and speed.
There is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be included in Qt or anywhere else.
WebKit is a fine piece of code and a great engine. It actually puts Gecko to shame, as far as the code and engineering goes, and it easily matches Gecko for rendering accuracy and speed.
There is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be included in Qt or anywhere else.
There is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be included in Qt or anywhere else.
Is there any project attempting to combine an XUL browser frontend (that would work with firefox extensions) with a Webkit backend?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xul
That could be interesting IMHO.
is webkit all that good for it to be in QT4.5 an or supported .. i dont think it is IMHO.
Webkit passes acid test 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Desktop_browsers
Edited 2008-08-13 12:55 UTC
Are you thinking about WebKit or KHTML? You do realize that many browsers are switching their backends to Webkit or at least adding an optional Webkit rendering path because it is now an excellent rendering engine and its nightlies are very exciting especially with its new JavaScript engine and HTML 5 support. The only thing Gecko has that is better than Webkit is MathML. As far as I know Webkit has no MathML support currently.







Member since:
2005-07-07
is webkit all that good for it to be in QT4.5 an or supported .. i dont think it is IMHO.