Submitted by “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.”
From the 43 selectors 21 have passed, 7 are buggy and 15 are unsupported (Passed 336 out of 578 tests)
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
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
IE 5.5 On Windows 2000 (test machine):
The test script never ran.
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
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
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.
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)
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)
The webkit nightly release …
From the 43 selectors 25 have passed, 9 are buggy and 9 are unsupported (Passed 355 out of 578 tests)
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.
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.
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.
It’s not only GMail, but most of the Web 2.0 sites that don’t work with Konqueror.
yeah, i HATE the non-html version of gmail. i can’t open emails in tabs, which is very annoying…
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.
“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.
It’s based on yeah. Far derived though.
but they might merge again for KDE 4…
Is a real nice browser, but I found it’s not compatible with Picasa Web for uploading photos.
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…
http://zsitvaij.web.elte.hu/screens/shot80.png
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”.
” That doesn’t meet my standard for “usable”.”
Yeah, I would have expected Google to make it usable.
Hope Opera picks this up for version 10, no need to be 2nd-string on standards here.
//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
You, sir, have ruined me. CSS3 no longer exists in my world, I’m sticking with the ACID2 test.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…”
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.
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.
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.
From the 43 selectors 25 have passed, 8 are buggy and 10 are unsupported (Passed 352 out of 578 tests)
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.
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 …
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?
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/
From the 43 selectors 8 have passed, 1 are buggy and 34 are unsupported (Passed 274 out of 578 tests)
shhh….
Pretty good for a browser that came out almost 6 years ago.
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!
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!
Well, co"operation 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…
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…
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
From the 43 selectors 37 have passed, 6 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 570 out of 578 tests)