Talk:KHTML

message: Blink is quite new announcement but Google has moved the entire Chromium Project to it which is NOT WEBKIT and is simply a fork not of khtml but of webkit(a khtml fork itself) I went to make the changes but am very unsure of how I would fix it appropriately! Anyone want to take a look at it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaicares (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Blink

message: Someone add something with a citation to say it used by the new Google Chrome.
Maybe a screenshot of the about box or something.
CryptWizard (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chrome uses the KHTML-derived WebKit, not the original KHTML. Guy Harris (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Chrome

message: On 01 Nov 2004, this article was cited in a SecurityFocus article on phishing. Securiger 06:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SecurityFocus cite 

message: I made a seperate section about the relationship between apple and KHTML.  
The presentation of the information as one big paragraph made it hard to read, so I split it into two.  It still might be a bit hard to follow;  rewording the section might be in order.  --Starwed 21:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple 

message: it is NOT true that the support for the acid2 test was based upon patches from apple, the khtml project created that themselves, as the stuff they got from apple was useless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.156.209 (talk • contribs) 
So fix the article, with a citation. -- Jon Dowland 08:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not true 

message: I wonder why KDE is spendding effort on KHTMl and does not use Gekko and joint the effort on Gekko for a faster improvement? 134.157.170.184 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, on the other hand, wonder why Mozilla spends effort on Gecko instead of switching to KHTML and contributing to it. --Shutranm 00:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: KHTML has a much better standards compilance level than Gecko. Besides, in open source world, "competition" (notice the quotes) between projects usually makes both of them stronger. See KDE and Gnome, cdrecord and cdrdao, mplayer and xine, emacs and vim... --Pmbarros 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: KHTML developers has actually two times tried to join Mozilla, the latest attempt created the now abandoned Qt backend for Gecko. Unfortunately Mozilla is a very closed community that looks down upon external developers. Getting commit access is practically impossible. Carewolf 09:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And that article is WRONG and inaccurate. Carewolf, btw, is one of the contributers to KHTML, you should possibly listen to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.222.150 (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but with all due respect to Carewolf we have to be careful about bias, so we have to depend on citable sources. See articles like WP:NPOV and WP:RS. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why KHTML 

message: I find it hard to believe that they support the CSS3 standard 100% (including aural etc). On a quick google I could only find references to passing all the tests for CSS3 selectors. The edit was checked in at 21:54, 13 April 2007. Can anyone correct or add a reference? --MinorContributor 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSS3 is not even done or even in Candidate Recommendation anymore, so full complience is simply impossible, and meaningless. Konqueror has 100% support of CSS3 Selectors, supports most of CSS3 Borders and Background, and various independt CSS3 properties such as opacity (only KDE4), text-shadow and box-sizing. If anything I would rather claim 100% implementation of CSS 2.1, which is rather rare, and not even Firefox will only reach in version 3. Carewolf 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full CSS3 support? 

message: Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Ubuntu GNU/Linux. Gronky 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The selection has moved on and is now LyX - the graphical TeX editor. Gronky 09:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], KHTML is now the selected article 

message: :Since the divesture of the sourcecode into the CVS repository
This really doesn't seem to be the right wording. Can anyone figure out what the article is trying to say? --Steven Fisher 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  divesture 

message: I'm referring to this line in the article: "As of June 2007, it has been revealed that Qt-WebKit probably will replace KHTML in KDE 4.1. Qt-WebKit is to be included in the upcoming Qt 4.4 release" which I believe is incorrect.  According to Tom Albers's Blog, "KHTML is actively maintained and I want to stress that there are no plans to replace it with WebKit and I want to ask to stop spreading these kind of rumors."  I'm going to be bold and change this.  If you have any disagreements, find a more up to date source than the Ars Technica article.  It is true that Qt-WebKit will be included in Qt 4.4, so I will keep that part, but there is nothing to suggest that it would replace KHTML.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkhack (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, it _is_ being discussed and _is_ a likely scenario. It is just wrong to write as a fact because it hasn't been decided yet. Carewolf (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WebKit Replacing KHTML? 

message: On January 21, 2008, I added details about the early history of KHTML, based largely on information in the video of the December 8, 2006 "From KDE to WebKit" presentationhttp://yuiblog.com/blog/2006/12/11/knoll-staikos-video that Lars Knoll and George Staikos did at the Yahoo! offices.
— Sideshowbarker (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  early history of KHTML 

message: ::KHTML renders faster than the Gecko layout engine,Browser speed comparisons
This information is out-dated, since Firefox 3.0 (gecko 1.9) is released. In this reference, only Firefox 2.0 an many other old browser versions are tested. Has anyone got benchmarks which are more up-to-date? --217.238.163.82 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendering Speed 

message: I just added a table called Browser version summary, which aims to be similar to that found in the Gecko article. Do we think this is best here or in the WebKit article? And do we need dates?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.176 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping track of versions