Talk:Comparison of layout engines (graphics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] KHTML and KParts

AFAIK KHTML is using KParts to display content other than pure HTML. Thus it is wrong to mark SVG as no, but other image formats as yes. Either mark all KParts as no or as yes, but not a mixture of it.--Hhielscher 16:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Is KPart part of KHTML? If not, we need to rename the KHTML columns as KPart, or add a footnote to KHTML mentioning that KHTML doesn't support media types other than (X)HTML by itself. But another problem is that it seems that SVG is not supported via KPart, as it is supported with the KSVG plugin. --minghong 08:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK KHTML itself is a KPart and Konqueror is only a KParts-Viewer. The default KPart that is used for images is khtmlimage, but I have heard that the KDE shipped with SuSE is defaulting to the Gwenview-KPart instead. I guess that we could count khtmlimage to KHTML since the development is done in the KHTML-Tree, but YMMV.--Hhielscher 16:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I see. Then I mark them all as "N/A". I know this may be unfair to KDE as all these stuffs (KHTML/KPart/KSVG) are under the huge KDE project. But since this article is comparsion of layout engines, we can't suddenly compare layout engine with KDE file handling component. I'm sorry if it wasted your efforts. :-( --minghong 18:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
But how do you know that other built-in engines like Trident or Webcore do not use some kind of component system internally?--Hhielscher 18:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
What people want to know is "If I use XYZ on my site, will KHTML-based products support it?" ... The best option is to indicate support as with a default KDE install, and footnote this is the case. This could be fixed by labelling the columns "KDE" and "KSVG", with explanatory footnotes.
Ack, the KHTML column is currently just wasting space. Why not note the facts regarding it in the introductory paragraph and eliminate the redundant column? porges 07:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with my Hhielscher and the unknown IP. I think it isn't informative at all to keep it that way. In fact it is useless for anybody visiting this page. I think we could rename the "normal" image colums to KParts and the SVG Image column to KSVG and add a note somewhere that this information is included because of interest although strictly speaking it wouldn't belong here. Grey 14:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I also agree - this page should show the various components that KHTML uses (like KSVG) so that we get a clear picture of (for instance) SVG-support on all modern browsers. The KHTML column is useless otherwise (and gives a false picture of support for the browsers that use KHTML and its components). Jeff schiller 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Imho, IE's support for images is also based on system resources ... anyway, I've been bold and restored the KHTML column (with names KParts and KSVG). The note on KHTML in the general overview already explains the situation very good, the only thing missing is the part about "this information is included because of interest although strictly speaking it wouldn't belong here.". Once I've come up with a decent phrase, I'll edit it in. Grey 21:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of layout engines vs. Comparison of HTML-layout engines?

I do not think that the name of the article is correct. This article compares only HTML-based Layout Engines, not Layout Engines in General.--Hhielscher 18:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That's because the layout engine article is about WWW layout engine only. Do you mean rendering engine of games? --minghong 02:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IE version vs. Trident version

The versions for Trident here and in other layout comparison pages are inconsistent with the versions stated in Trident (layout engine). According to that page, Tridents is versioned from I to V, while IE is versioned from 4.0 to 7.0. This needs to be made consistent and clarified.

[edit] Mozilla's Image Rendering is not Gecko!

http://libpr0n.com/

Mozilla uses libpr0n for images.

[edit] KHTML and SVG?

Who marked KHTML as "Yes" for SVG 1.1 Tiny, Basic and Full? This says they still have quite a bit of work to do. Jeff schiller 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opera 9 Beta

I think the verdict was that until a browser (and corresponding engine) goes gold that we shouldn't be listing capabilities of previews, alphas and betas. Opera 9 Beta was released yesterday and they're now at SVG 1.1 Basic support with a partial support for SVG 1.1 Full, that's why I'm asking. Jeff schiller 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for IE7 Betas in all articles. Both are layout-complete, though, thus it should be valid. Either way, imho consistency has priority. Until someone actually corrects all articles, I will be marking SVG Full as "partial" for Opera9. Grey 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVGT <=> SVGF issue

I have edited the Presto Engine records in order to reflect the stage when SVGF was fully applicable for that element. In some cases, this is unprecise, but I can't do anything about it. I have not touched any elements that are not fully supported (attributes not interpreted). If you want to see which elements were supported since 8.0 w/ or w/o SVGT mark see revision history. You are free to restore the original revision if you think it's more accurate. I don't really think it is ... Grey 14:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point of the APNG table row?

Since no browser supports APNG, and since it's not an official standard, wouldn't it be better to remove this row? What's the logic behind including it and not all the other graphics formats? El T 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the other comparisons are also things listed that are not yet supported, but anticipated to be supported. I'm not sure if the latter also applies to APNG, though. One reason for GIF still being used though is because it supports animations, which PNG doesn't. MNG certainly has many other positive aspects, but afaik the APNG implementation is so simple (compared to the heavy MNG - standard?), that the chance of implementation is bigger. I wouldn't mind very much if you removed this row, though, but that's only my point of view. Grey 20:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "in progress" ?

What's the point of this value? It isn't implemented in the Browser. Imho not even in the "minefield" versions, betas, whatever. If Gecko does support this, mark this as "1.8.x" or "1.9", respectively, but don't give such vague explanation. Assuming you mean it is "in the trunk" (which isn't even right for animate, as far as I can see), I will remove these. Grey 16:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing Rainbow

What does pale green mean? What about a legend for this page? Why does KHTML have "Yes" in bold green for all of SVG, when the later SVG table clearly shows how little of SVG KHTML currently supports? Why does the same SVG table show all of Opera's implementation as pale green when for certain individual SVG elements they have implemented it fully (shouldn't it be solid green?). Jeff schiller 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just because some cells use the template ("yes"), and some use a color. A few months ago (as you will surely remember) these were looking exactly the same and indeed they have the same meaning. I don't know who changed the templates (to that bright green), though. Looks ugly... Anyways, it would be just a matter of applying the template to the "pale" cells. Once I find sufficient time (should be in a few days), I'll do it but anybody's invited to do in the meantime. --Grey 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Task done. Applied templates "yes", "partial" and "?". No "confusing rainbow" anymore and brought the size down under 32k, too. I am not aware of any "incorrect" template, so I didn't apply that. I thought I had done this a while back (as I did with other articles), but it seems I was wrong. Checking the other articles for consistency problems now. --Grey 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test cases

Where the test cased can be obtained to check / augment the tables? We should make these test suites publicly avaiable to make this information verifieble, to conform to Wikipedia standards. --Maxim Masiutin 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BMP

This article should include .BMP rendering implementation too. I know Trident supports it, but I'm not sure about the others. I believe some forms of .TIF are supported by some too, but I'm less sure about that. 67.172.182.35 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Raw bitmaps are not suitable for the web. BMP therefore isn't either. As for TIFF, if I am not absolutely mistaken, it has been in there for quite some time. No idea who removed it or when. --Grey 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about PDF?

WebKit supports PDF embedded rednering as an alternative vector graphic format to SVG (SVG support is very close to general public release in WebKit). Other engines may also have support. --207.168.161.13 23:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComparison_of_layout_engines_%28graphics%29_897e.html"