Markus Slopianka wrote: > Um, is there a reason why QupZilla <http://www.qupzilla.com/> was not > included or is this just an oversight? It was brought up on the chan later (and so far didn't get much support). Mainly, we didn't consider it right away because it's a (mostly) Qt-only browser (one out of several QtWebKit browsers, actually, e.g., there's also Arora). Maybe we should reconsider. (Christoph Wickert also says QupZilla is the best Qt browser, that's why he maintains the Fedora package.) > QupZilla is a Qt-based web browser that currently is better maintained > than Konqueror and Rekonq together. Konqueror's UI is very cluttered, > whereas Rekonq's UI is not conforming to KDE standards, eg. no menu bar > (not even optional), tabs on top (IIRC not configurable), etc.). I don't personally like Rekonq's UI either, I prefer Konqueror. QupZilla's look is indeed more customizable, the default looks more like Konqueror (I just tried it), one of the screenshots on the website shows it set up to look like Rekonq. > QupZilla OTOH visually fits quite nicely into the rest of KDE applications > and it has KWallet support. But it does not support KIO. :-( So, in particular, no man:, info:, gopher: etc. URLs. (Both Konqueror and Rekonq support that.) It also does not support KDE web shortcuts, like gg: to search in Google, bz: for Red Hat Bugzilla with a bug ID, bug: for KDE Bugzilla with a bug ID etc. :-( (Both Konqueror and Rekonq support that, too.) Also, Edit / Preferences does not comply to the KDE HIG. (It's a GNOMEism.) So, unfortunately, it shows that it is Qt-only, KDE integration is only partial. That said, you have a good point there, in particular one against Firefox: Firefox does not support KWallet! Another very strong reason not to default to it. Folks, you can argue all you want that users "don't notice" missing system integration, but for KWallet, users WILL notice. > It also has good extension support, including support for user scripts. That's a plus (and something neither Konqueror nor Rekonq currently have). > I think in general QupZilla also finds the balance of configurability and > ease of use that KDE people expect, whereas Konqueror and Rekonq are on > opposite ends of that spectrum. My personal opinion is that Konqueror is the right approach. But I'll take any KDE or even Qt-only browser as our default over Firefox any day. (As for myself, you can pry my Konqueror from my cold, dead hands. ;-) ) > A port to the Chromium-based QtWebEngine of Qt 5 is also already under > way. The latest version is packaged in Rawhide. In case you use F19 or F20 > and want to easily check it out, I've packaged it under > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/KAMiKAZOW:/Fedora/ Is QtWebEngine even good enough for that (i.e. writing a browser around it) yet? The Rekonq developer does not think it is, and based on what I've read from Qt upstream, I'd tend to agree. By the way, getting QtWebEngine into Fedora is going to be a real problem. We don't even have upstream Chromium in because it bundles so many libraries, and now that thing bundles Chromium! I get the feeling that we can only get this in if the reviewer closes both eyes deep shut. :-( But this is going to affect all Qt/KDE browsers and even non-browser applications (so we won't be able to chicken out of it just by shipping Firefox) sooner or later. It's a real problem. > Before I switched to Fedora for hardware compatibility reasons, I was > conducting my own research on that matter to propose a Qt-based web > browser to openSUSE. > I think I went in with an open mind. Thank you for your insights. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
