On Wednesday 28 January 2009 17:38:38 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > > In terms of what? > > In terms of Konqueror 4.2.0 working better than 4.1.4 on that particular > web page. > > I think this is indeed the case based on the reports. > Seems to me that you have a choice between trying to improve performance on standards-respecting sites, and probably failing on the many that aren't, or choosing to try to deal with any old rubbish out there. Someone has to make that choice, and they'll be damned whichever path they choose. Personally, I feel that konqueror has steadily improved over the last couple of years, but I can't back that up with stats, and I can't prove whether it's konqueror that has improved or website designers that have improved. For that matter, even my ability to provide konqueror with plugins that needs might be one of the factors. It just seems too complicated a situation to have any chance of easy answers. Anne -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/attachments/20090128/565e30ee/attachment.bin
