<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Aug 9, 2015 5:13 PM, "Sindre Wetjen" <<a href="mailto:sindre.w@gmail.com">sindre.w@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sunday 09 August 2015 09:33:15 Mustafa Muhammad wrote:<br>
> > On Aug 8, 2015 4:55 PM, "Sindre Wetjen" <<a href="mailto:sindre.w@gmail.com">sindre.w@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > On Friday 07 August 2015 15:03:41 Mustafa Muhammad wrote:<br>
> > > > Pros<br>
> > > > 4) Better support for internet video<br>
> > ><br>
> > > That is not true. Konq supports the same amount of video formats as<br>
> ><br>
> > Firefox<br>
> ><br>
> > > fedora (VP8 only). If you want h264 you have to go through some<br>
> ><br>
> > configuration<br>
> ><br>
> > > for both browsers.<br>
> ><br>
> > Firefox is implementing media source extensions, which is required for VP9<br>
> > in YouTube and probably in other websites.<br>
><br>
> What Firefox has in the future is not relevant now. It will also be<br>
> interesting to see what the MPEG-consortium does with the DASH licensing (I've<br>
> read some news about them considering taking money for it) which youtube use<br>
> in combination with the VP9 video streaming. This could prevent Firefox from<br>
> getting VP9 for quite some time, at least for smooth youtube streaming.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is not likely, they said this about VP9 and nobody did anything, I don't really know.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> ><br>
> > > > 5) Much better support for the latest standard (HTML 5), if you compare<br>
> > > > Konq to Firefox in <a href="http://html5test.com">http://html5test.com</a> you will be shocked.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Doesn't really help if they don't target your rendering engine.<br>
> ><br>
> > I didn't understand what you are trying to say.<br>
><br>
> If you don't write web pages that use the exact number of things that FF<br>
> support as opposed to e.g Chrome, then it will not work in FF.<br>
><br>
> > > > 7) Higher number of users and developers mean bugs and security<br>
> > > > vulnerabilities gets found and fixed faster.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > There are more users on WebKit (Safari is more popular than Firefox,<br>
> ><br>
> > atleast<br>
> ><br>
> > > in my country), the devs do you have numbers that actually quantify that<br>
> > > statement?<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="https://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2015-06/SquidReportClients">https://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2015-06/SquidReportClients</a><br>
> > .htm<br>
><br>
> Did you take into account the Mobile views?</p>
<p dir="ltr">No, I only checked desktop browsers since developers target a specific form factor by a specific version of their site, but I can see if we add desktop and mobile them Safari has higher number of users.<br>
The problem with QtWebKit is that it is very much behind upstream WebKit development.<br>
When Chromium used WebKit it was several years ahead of QtWebKit.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Mustafa<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> kde mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:kde@lists.fedoraproject.org">kde@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde</a><br>
> New to KDE4? - get help from <a href="http://userbase.kde.org">http://userbase.kde.org</a></p>