[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KHTML in GNUStep?
From: |
Mayuresh Kathe |
Subject: |
Re: KHTML in GNUStep? |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:01:44 +0530 (IST) |
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
> Looking only at the rendering engine, Gecko is about twice as big as
> KHTML - so "porting" KHTML would be, if not easier, at least quicker.
Also, KHTML is far lighter on resources, and dazzlingly faster than Moz
engine.
> Why is everyone so narrow-focused on Gecko/Mozilla anyway?
They've got blinders ;)
> Even Gecko/Mozilla developer admit that it's bloated, compared to KHTML,
> and doesn't implement HTML4 or (even) CSS1 (let alone CSS2) as close as
> should be...
> I'm not saying KHTML is "better" - I'm just wondering.
Compared to Moz, I think KHTML is better because its more recent, and is
being developed primarily as a HTML part for K rather than a whole big
blob which does everything from HTML to EMail to News, etc
~Mayuresh
RE: KHTML in GNUStep?, Mondragon, Ian, 2003/01/15
Re: KHTML in GNUStep?, Jason Clouse, 2003/01/15
Message not available
Re: KHTML in GNUStep?, Jason Clouse, 2003/01/15
Re: KHTML in GNUStep?, Helmut Heller, 2003/01/16
Re: KHTML in GNUStep?, MJ Ray, 2003/01/16