Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> I thought we had already crossed the rubicon on that - meaning that
> specifically for a web browser, functionality and usability are part of
> the equation also, and they can collectively outweigh the perceived
> benefits of an integrated experience.
But with QupZilla, we now have a native Qt browser that has the
functionality and usability level on websites of Chromium, which is about
the same as the Firefox one. So this is no longer a valid argument for
Firefox.
As for the functionality at application level, QupZilla already has some
features Firefox does not have (e.g., builtin ad blocking). And the few
missing pieces are constantly being added, e.g., there should be support for
printing at least to PDF (if not directly to the printer) in time for the
F25 release (the QtWebEngine parts for printing to PDF are already in the
upstream 5.7.0 release which will land in Rawhide ASAP).
> Firefox is in the process of a major revamp where they are going to have a
> multi-process architecture and support Chrome extensions.
AIUI, binary compatibility with Chrome extensions was never promised. They
just want to offer a similar API to make it easier for developers to port
extensions. Also, this is not available yet.
> Chromium is currently under package review in Fedora. QupZilla does not
> currently support Chrome extensions, and from their FAQ it's not on their
> roadmap.
> Maybe they will change their mind, maybe they won't. In any event, we
> should probably wait to see the results of the above before addressing
> this again.
Extensions (especially compatibility with extensions designed for a specific
browser; note that QupZilla does have an extension API, it's just that it is
not currently being used by third-party developers) are not required
functionality for a web browser.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
kde mailing list
kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
