The Webkist engine afaik is licensed under the GPL, because of the use
of the code from the original KHTML. I'm not sure how this fits with M$
proprietary plan however...
Webkit is licensed under LGPL and BSD licenses.
You say that, have you heard the latest for IE9? They're already
Now I tend only to use it now for file management, FTP and testing
websites.
Beware that Konqueror has changed with KDE4. Now its main purpose is
to be a web browser, whereas the new program Dolphin is used for
file management etc.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To
Craige Leeder wrote:
Micah Gersten wrote:
I'd rather all the engines follow the W3C standards so that you just
have to make sure your web page is compliant.
Thank you,
Micah Gersten
onShore Networks
Internal Developer
http://www.onshore.com
Though I always script to W3 Standards, I
Per Jessen wrote:
Craige Leeder wrote:
Micah Gersten wrote:
I'd rather all the engines follow the W3C standards so that you just
have to make sure your web page is compliant.
Thank you,
Micah Gersten
onShore Networks
Internal Developer
http://www.onshore.com
Though I always script to W3
Per Jessen wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
i never understand this, if i was makign a browser I'd be where's
the rfc's then code it to implement those rfc's - why people choose
not to is beyond me?
World domination is part of the reasoning ...
/Per
although the crapness of firefox 3 may change that a bit..
Keh? FF3 is great IMO.
--
Richard Heyes
HTML5 Graphing for FF, Chrome, Opera and Safari:
http://www.rgraph.org (Updated November 15th)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit:
Richard Heyes wrote:
although the crapness of firefox 3 may change that a bit..
Keh? FF3 is great IMO.
I thought that at first as well, then I noticed it was a bit unstable on
windows xp/media center/tablet edition, on all my machines, then
talked to workmates, friends, partner etc and
Richard Heyes wrote:
although the crapness of firefox 3 may change that a bit..
Keh? FF3 is great IMO.
FF2 and FF# are not 100% compatible which made some of our web
interfaces look wrong in FF3. I haven't been able to find the problem
yet:
FF2: http://jessen.ch/images/sam-menu-ff2.jpeg
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
i never understand this, if i was makign a browser I'd be where's
the rfc's then code it to implement those rfc's - why people choose
not to is beyond me?
World domination is part of the reasoning ...
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On 19 Nov 2008, at 12:01, Nathan Rixham wrote:
from some of my sites:
Browser % visits
Firefox 88.43%
Internet Explorer 9.99%
Firefox 46.89%
Internet Explorer 37.66%
Opera 7.36%
Safari 5.39%
Chrome 2.17%
Firefox 46.80%
Internet Explorer 42.45%
Safari 5.36%
Opera 3.07%
Mozilla 1.22%
although
Per Jessen wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Though I always script to W3 Standards, I could care less if
browsers follow those standards, so long as we wind up closer and
closer to a general set of rules we can obide by.
Uh, only as long as that general set of rules is well documented.
/Per
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Though I always script to W3 Standards, I could care less if
browsers follow those standards, so long as we wind up closer and
closer to a general set of rules we can obide by.
Uh, only as long as that general set of rules is well documented.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Yeti wrote:
Just battling that fiasco myself. Konqueror and Dolphin combination just
does not work for me which is a pity - and KDE4 . I was pointed to xfce
which seems to be much more practical :)
Having ditched the Windows 'development machine' everything is now on a nice
linux box, but I
-Original Message-
From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:09 PM
To: Yeti
Cc: Boyd, Todd M.; PHP General Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: anchor name on URL
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 14:58 -0800, Yeti wrote:
I look forward to the day
-Original Message-
From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:58 PM
To: Richard Heyes
Cc: Yeti; Boyd, Todd M.; PHP General Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: anchor name on URL
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 23:51 +, Richard Heyes wrote:
Yeah
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 01:57 -0800, Yeti wrote:
Now I tend only to use it now for file management, FTP and testing
websites.
Beware that Konqueror has changed with KDE4. Now its main purpose is
to be a web browser, whereas the new program Dolphin is used for
file management etc.
I still
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 08:27 -0600, Boyd, Todd M. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 5:58 PM
To: Richard Heyes
Cc: Yeti; Boyd, Todd M.; PHP General Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: anchor name on URL
-Original Message-
From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Boyd, Todd M.
Cc: PHP General Mailing List
Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: anchor name on URL
---8---
Don't forget Konqueror in that list ;) It's not exactly the same
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 14:21 -0600, Stan wrote:
Well ... you got me thinking ...
I moved the placement of the named anchor to inside the first td tag in
the row and it works (instead of inside the tr tag.
Sorry.
Ah, it seems that the doctype might have been to blame then, as an a
tag
-Original Message-
From: Ashley Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:34 PM
To: Stan
Cc: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: anchor name on URL
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 14:21 -0600, Stan wrote:
Well ... you got me thinking ...
I
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 14:58 -0800, Yeti wrote:
I look forward to the day when markup isn't so bloated
due to the inability of certain web browser franchises to get it right.
Although I usually look at the future through an optimistic point of
view, that day may never come.
You say that,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say that, have you heard the latest for IE9? They're already
planning it, and apparently it's going to use Microsoft's own
version of the Webkit engine!
Fixed your post, Ash.
--
/Daniel P. Brown
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 18:09 -0500, Daniel P. Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say that, have you heard the latest for IE9? They're already
planning it, and apparently it's going to use Microsoft's own
version of the Webkit engine!
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you fixed it, so much as wrote something else and made it
look like I wrote it...
Yes.
--
/Daniel P. Brown
http://www.parasane.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ask me about our current
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 18:21 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you fixed it, so much as wrote something else and made it
look like I wrote it...
Yes.
--
/Daniel P. Brown
http://www.parasane.net/
I look forward to the day when markup isn't so bloated
due to the inability of certain web browser franchises to get it right.
Although I usually look at the future through an optimistic point of
view, that day may never come.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd really rather you didn't, please.
And I'd rather you had a sense of humor. So in hindsight, we both
learned something.
--
/Daniel P. Brown
http://www.parasane.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ask me
You say that, have you heard the latest for IE9? They're already
planning it, and apparently it's going to use the Webkit engine!
That would be nice, if only for the rather good canvas support, which
I kinda have a vested interest in.
--
Richard Heyes
HTML5 Graphing for FF, Chrome, Opera and
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 23:44 +, Richard Heyes wrote:
You say that, have you heard the latest for IE9? They're already
planning it, and apparently it's going to use the Webkit engine!
That would be nice, if only for the rather good canvas support, which
I kinda have a vested interest in.
Yeah, but it will mean that there will still be about 3 different
rendering versions of IE out there by the time it comes out; 7, 8 and 9
(I'm fairly sure 6 will have gone to that good ol' web in the sky by
that time)
Sure, but depending on how closely it follows WebKit, could make
testing on
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 23:51 +, Richard Heyes wrote:
Yeah, but it will mean that there will still be about 3 different
rendering versions of IE out there by the time it comes out; 7, 8 and 9
(I'm fairly sure 6 will have gone to that good ol' web in the sky by
that time)
Sure, but
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget Konqueror in that list ;) It's not exactly the same engine
after Apple forked it from KHTML, but it's quite close, and both
Konqueror and Safari are said to be working a little more closely than
before to
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:01 -0500, Daniel P. Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Ashley Sheridan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget Konqueror in that list ;) It's not exactly the same engine
after Apple forked it from KHTML, but it's quite close, and both
Konqueror and
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 23:51 +, Richard Heyes wrote:
Yeah, but it will mean that there will still be about 3 different
rendering versions of IE out there by the time it comes out; 7, 8 and 9
(I'm fairly sure 6 will have gone to that good ol' web in the sky by
Micah Gersten wrote:
I'd rather all the engines follow the W3C standards so that you just
have to make sure your web page is compliant.
Thank you,
Micah Gersten
onShore Networks
Internal Developer
http://www.onshore.com
Though I always script to W3 Standards, I could care less if browsers
35 matches
Mail list logo
