
	Where results make sense

Topic: KHTML

Related Topics

WebCore

Konqueror

Comparison of web browsers

Web browser

Browser wars

WorldWideWeb

Internet Explorer

NetCaptor

Microbrowser

Web cache

HTTP cookie

Windows Explorer

Session management

BSD license

World Wide Web

	KHTML - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		KHTML is the HTML layout engine developed by the KDE project.
		Built on the then new KPart framework, it was introduced with KDE2 in 2000, for use in the new Konqueror file and web browser which replaced the monolithic KDE File Manager.
		KHTML is fast, but currently less error tolerant than the Gecko layout engine, its main open source rival and core of the Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox browsers, among others.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/KHTML (508 words)

	aseigo: why khtml is important
		I agree, KHTML is important, even though a lot of konqueror's rendering is grotesque, I end up using it exclusively because it's integrated.
		KHTML is sort of slowed by Apple, AFAIK much of the work done on Safari/KHTML isn't inputted upstream, but rather must be ported by the KHTML team.
		I like khtml for one reason, and that's plain speed, but I simply refuse to use it at the moment due to the fact that it won't render gmail/javascript.
	aseigo.blogspot.com /2005/04/why-khtml-is-important.html (1367 words)

	So, when will KHTML merge all the WebCore changes? \| www.kdedevelopers.org (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		KHTML is good as it is, The all important "Acid2"-Test is of no importance, because if Safari is the only browser to succeed in it, then that means, that the techniques used in there will not be part of the real web experience.
		The rest is up to the KHTML folks if they want to extract the Apple code they want to use and put it into their code.
		KHTML was dead before Apple decided to adopt the project for Safari, don't forget that.
	www.kdedevelopers.org /node/view/1001 (2178 words)

	rakaz - Webkit vs. KHTML or Webkit & KHTML?
		KHTML is taking a more purists standpoint, while Webcore is going for compatibility, even if that means implementing IE-only, non-standard features.
		This is, I believe, the main reason why Webcore and KHTML grew apart in the last couple of years and why it will continue to grow further apart in the next couple of years.
		The story “Webkit vs. KHTML or Webkit and KHTML?” was written by “rakaz” and posted at 12:00 on 09 June 2005.
	rakaz.nl /item/webkit_vs_khtml_or_webkit_khtml (616 words)

	Apple snub stings Mozilla \| CNET News.com
		The company said it was based on the KHTML rendering engine that is the core of Konqueror, an open-source file manager and Web browser for the K Desktop Environment (KDE).
		In an e-mail congratulating KHTML engineers on their work and its selection by Apple, Safari's engineering manager touted the technology over Mozilla and its rendering engine, Gecko.
		KHTML is "very fast, doesn't have nearly the bloat of Mozilla, and does most of what I need," said Alex Russell, a Web application developer for SecurePipe and a lead developer for netWindows.
	news.com.com /2100-1023-980492.html (1704 words)

	WebCore - KHTML - Firefox: Know your facts! \| www.kdedevelopers.org (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		Apple acknowledges that their decision for KHTML was based on its very clean design, its easy to understand source code structure, on its HTML standard conformity and on its extremely fast rendering by being a lean and efficient code base.
		Not even the willingness of individual KHTML developers to sign NDAs (non disclosure agreements) with Apple does help to pave the way towards their access to Apple's source repository or bug data base.
		A KHTML developer clarifies in his blog that this is not going to happen any time soon -- because of the de facto fork of WebCore from KHTML, which just doesn't give an easy path to integrate Apple's WebCore changes back into KHTML.
	www.kdedevelopers.org /node/view/1049 (1209 words)

	Open-source divorce for Apple's Safari? - Software - News - ZDNet Asia (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		The choice of KHTML was seen as a validation of KDE's work in developing a small, fast browser engine, and it represented a significant victory over open-source rival Mozilla, which in its pre-Firefox days battled serious code bloat.
		KHTML coders said that they looked forward then to having full-time Apple engineers working on the project, which they said had languished by virtue of their own part-time, unpaid status.
		According to KHTML developers, Apple engineers took a less "pure" approach to fixing bugs, applying patches that KHTML developers were loath to reincorporate back into their code base.
	www.zdnetasia.com /news/software/0,39044164,39230030-2,00.htm (499 words)

	MacSlash \| Apple And KDE To Divorce?
		IMO, the KHTML guys are suffering from NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here), as they are unwilling to accept changes to the code that don't follow their philosophy.
		KHTML project is now pissed that they missed the boat a long time ago, and the MAJOR improvements are unusable by them because they turned their noses up at the earlier changes.
		KHTML prgrammers now in denial about this, are trying to rewrite history in a way that doesn't make them look stupid.
	macslash.org /article.pl?sid=05/05/12/153239 (1026 words)

	K-Meleon - Re: why not use khtml? (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		There is a KHTML for windows project on sourceforge, but it doesn't have any files released yet.
		Seriously though, I think his point was that khtml is supposed to be the fastest engine, and gecko has a reputation for being slow.
		Also, if khtml is as fast as the claims indicate (and doesn't sacrifice too much in the way of accuracy to achieve the speed), I think it would be a perfect compliment to k-meleon.
	kmeleon.sourceforge.net /forum/read.php?f=2&i=3925&t=3913 (1237 words)

	KHTML and Gecko - Sun, January 12, 2003 - WorldTimZone
		David Hyatt discussed in more detail why Apple would chose KHTML over Gecko as the engine for the Safari browser.
		Hyatt essentially said that in order to use Gecko to accomplish Safari’s speed goals, Apple would have had to significantly rearchitect some parts, drastically trim or remove several libraries, such as the image and network libraries that were redundant with Mac OS X libraries, and learn Gecko’s unique terminology for everything.
		With KHTML they did not need to rearchitect because they found it already small and well-designed.
	www.worldtimzone.com /blog/date/2003/01/12 (287 words)

	Inside Firefox - The Inside Track on Firefox Development
		I was reading CNet's coverage of some of the Safari vs. KHTML discussion that's been going on lately and was struck by a comment made by one of the KHTML developers...
		What Apple could have done is join the project and hack on KHTML in the KHTML cvs and there would be one main tree, with apples and KDE's release trees perhaps slightly divergent from that, but not to the extent that they are for most intents and purposes different code bases.
		KHTML is their baby, and to have a large company come in and say "here, we did it better", it makes sense that they might not like that.
	weblogs.mozillazine.org /ben/archives/008131.html (3886 words)

	Does Apple's choice of KHTML = Moz diss? - Topic Ars OpenForum
		Apparently KHTML (at the time of selection) was about 1/10th the size of Gecko, making it easier to walk right up to and start 'a hackin', Safari Engineering Manager Don Melton had this to say to the the KHTML team:
		KHTML on the other hand, is meant to to be a lightweight HTML rendering library.
		Apple choosing KHTML might actually help get the web back to where it wanted to be - different web readers able to access the web in lots of different ways regardless of the content because everything is done according to the standards.
	episteme.arstechnica.com /6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=1810913645&r=1810913645 (3660 words)

	CNET News.com Opines on Apple's Choice of KHTML - MozillaZine Talkback
		KHTML does support CSS1/2 and DOM1 but their level of compliance to the standards is way behind Gecko.
		KHTML is a much more standards compliant renderer than ie's, anything that pushes web designers towards full standards support is great news for mozilla.
		KHTML may launch faster because it is a smaller codebase but it doesn't have all the CSS and CSS2 features that Gecko supports.
	www.mozillazine.org /talkback.html?article=2826 (8276 words)

	KHTML for Win32
		The modifications that I made to the source that permit it to be compile under VC++ 6.2 where rolled into the KHTML base back in 2003.
		This method is only called once in KHTML when nothing else can be found to encode a form submission.
		KHTML also has one class that depends on pthreads, which means that a pthreads like wrapper to Win32 threads is necessary.
	khtml-win32.sourceforge.net (1111 words)

	NSLog(@"Erik J. Barzeski"); - QotD: WebCore and KHTML
		With KHTML Apple should have made it clearer that they were forking the code (the had to make some big changes to it, as it runs on top of Cocoa rather than KDE) so that people wouldn't expect them to be working with a plain KHTML source tree.
		The present conflict started because the KHTML developers were annoyed at the KHTML users for not understanding that it was non-trivial to port Apple's changes to KHTML.
		The fork wouldn't have been necessary if KHTML were a more portable component, Apple could have just used it as-is and been contributing their patches to the source tree rather than to their forked version.
	nslog.com /archives/2005/05/13/qotd_webcore_and_khtml.php (753 words)

	Re: Apple ditching KHTML (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		Apple ditching KHTML sort of shows to me that public open-source projects just are not as agile as many businesses need them to be (generally).
		They are suggesting that KDE drop KHTML in favor of WebCore so that KDE and Apple can work on the same codebase.
		KHTML was originally written to work on top of KDE (the K Desktop Environment), an interface for Linux and Unix operating systems.
	channel9.msdn.com /ShowPost.aspx?PostID=67760 (540 words)

	Next BeOS to use KHTML (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		On their website they have just announced two new technologies for their OS, based on KHTML: "JavaScriptCore and WebCore are two technologies, ported from Apple's work on KHTML (the engine from Konqueror, a "modern Net+" for Linux's KDE), by YellowTab.
		Re: KHTML by ac on Thursday 24/Jul/2003, @09:48
		Khtml is wonderful and Konqueror rocks, but both it and mozilla have a long way to go before they can be used to replace IE.
	dot.kde.org /1058605590 (755 words)

	KDE + KHTML + Apple + Safari + Webcore - Know the facts! :: osViews \| osOpinion :: Tech Opinions for the People, by the ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		They say that they had compared to "Gecko", the Mozilla rendering engine, and still choose KHTML, even despite of the fact that their workforce had previously been very familiar with Gecko.
		Apple/Safari/WebCore programmers create their own wrapper around KHTML (bear in mind two things here: first, they do not use Qt like KDE does; and second, Mac OS X's GUI is not based on X11, like KDE's is, but of their own proprietary Core Graphics engine...).
		In the following 2 years, KHTML developers even manage to back-port many (but by way not all) Safari improvements from WebCore to KHTML, and they always appreciated the improvements coming from Apple and still do so.
	www.osviews.com /modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4400 (1811 words)

	Is Apple a good open source citizen? \| InfoWorld \| Column \| 2005-05-30 \| By Neil McAllister (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06)
		But when it comes to the code Apple seeds back to the community, the KHTML developers are far from pleased, according to a blog post by Zack Rusin.
		If the KHTML team now feels there are still more ideals they'd like upheld, they should adjust their licensing terms.
		More telling, I think, is Rusin's comment that KHTML developers are tired of being called "lazy" for not incorporating all of Apple's changes into the main KHTML code base, when in fact many of Apple's changes are incompatible.
	www.infoworld.com /article/05/05/30/22OPopenent_1.html (1415 words)

	MacNN \| Apple considers abandoning KHTML for Safari
		The suggestion, which KHTML developers said they were unlikely to accept, comes as Apple tries to quell rising dissatisfaction among the original architects of KHTML.
		These developers are calling the relationship between their group and Apple a "bitter failure," accusing the computer maker of taking more than it gives back to the open-source group.
		KHTML was extremely streamlined when the decided to use it.
	www.macnn.com /articles/05/05/12/khtml.and.safari (943 words)

	MacNN \| KHTML project, Apple struggle over open-source rules
		While it surprised us greatly that Apple went with KHTML instead of the Gecko-engine at the start it has proven to be a wise descision later on.
		The suggestion was to change the development branch of the project to the branch that Apple has created and uses for their development.
		As repeatedly stated incorrectly on the web and again here, it appears Apple is telling the khtml folks to drop their stuff and go with an Apple technology.
	www.macnn.com /articles/05/05/30/khtml.project.vs..apple (787 words)

	Apple announced Safari, its KHTML-based OS X browser, at Macworld San Francisco this month. Thoughts? - MozillaZine ...
		KHTML has had at least a year and a half, probably two years, more than Gecko (Gecko wasn't developed until about Sept/October of 1998- the period from Jan 98 to Oct 98 was focused on the Communicator 5 code which was dumped).
		So long as KHTML lags in their compliance with CSS2, HTML4 and DOM specifications, they will never be the leading browser.
		Now, it's possible that KHTML users are going to blame my work (which would be unfortunate), but the truth is that KHTML just doesn't measure up.
	www.mozillazine.org /poll_results.html?id=2820 (5584 words)

	LWN: Apple and KHTML
		No, KHTML is not derived from Gecko (Mozilla's rendering engine).
		As is stated in http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/1001 (which was linked to in the main story, khtml developes do _not_ have a problem with what Apple is currently doing, e.g.
		BTW, there is a port of WebCore to GTK, and also a port to GNUstep (although this project seems to have been abandoned).
	lwn.net /Articles/137026 (313 words)

	K-Meleon - Re: why not use khtml?
		However, it seems like porting khtml is hard stuff.
		Maybe not the main K-Meleon developers would do it, but maybe someone else is interested enough to try.
		The first thing needed is a working KHTML port for Windows, and K-Meleon isn't the project to do it.
	kmeleon.sourceforge.net /forum/read.php?f=4&i=5680&t=5596 (57 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)