In other words, your definition of "typical HTML" is the non-standards
compliant (according to the W3C) variety. Remember that Konqueror (along with
other newer browsers like Mozilla/Netscape 6 and Opera) aims to support
standards-based HTML. The browser wars saw both Netscape and M$ deliberately
create non-standards compliant HTML engines for their browsers as a means of
"innovation". It also meant that web designers had to make sure that their
pages looked good in both browsers, since they were (and still are) slightly
incompatible. This puts other browsers, which have a far smaller market
share, at a disadvantage, since no-one checks whether their pages work in
them. A great example of this is zdnet.com. Despite supporting Linux in many
ways (they have a large Linux section and they own the Linux Hardware
Database, among other things), their pages look horrible outside of Netscape
4.x and M$IE. It was only relatively recently that standards-based browsers
have become prominent. It will take some time for most sites to comply. For
this to happen we need compliant web authoring tools, in addition to
compliant browsers. Currently many people use software like M$ FrontPage,
which I doubt will become standards-compliant any time soon. In the meantime,
several standards-compliant browsers have implemented compatibility modes
that can parse malformed HTML. Konqueror does this, but I don't expect it to
be good until KDE 2.1.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:37, Abraham Pinzur wrote:
> For those of you who are as picky as I am, Konqueror is less than adequate
> in rendering typical HTML. By typical, I mean stuff that works in IE and
> Netscape 4.7. Compare, for instance, http://www.cnn.com/.
>
> - Av -
>
> --
> Abraham P. (Av) Pinzur
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.crispgraphics.com/~newav
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be rebooted to acknowledge
this change.
