Hi! I tried preview release live cd (breezy) and guess what - epiphany depends on it again! <div>On 9/20/05, Edward H. Trager <<a href="mailto:ehtrager@umich.edu"> ehtrager@umich.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On Tuesday 2005.09.20 21:48:44 +0300, Sandis Neilands wrote: > Hi! > > After reading gnome-bittorent-too-simple thread I have a question about > browsers - why not to include Epiphany as a default gnome web browser? It is > better integrated in gnome, it's simplier, it doesn't use THAT much > reousrces as firefox does. Don't know about security though. And does it really work as well as Firefox or not?  Has Epiphany really been tested in the way the Firefox has?  Not only with regard to security, but also with regard to rendering non-Latin web pages, handling Javascript correctly, handling CSS-1 and CSS-2 correctly, DOM handling, etc.?  The last time I tested Epiphany (admittedly this was quite a while ago), it performed fairly poorly on some of my tests (which were mostly in the CSS and DOM realm at that time). While Firefox still has a fair share of problems with it (hence the need, for example, for Ubuntu to patch it to handle Indic rendering properly, something that the Firefox people really need to settle once and for all in their own code base), does it not seem wiser to stick with the more actively developed and presumably more actively tested browser?</blockquote><div>  Then how did evolution get in? I don't really think it's used more than thunderbird. </div>And Jeff - where else can i ask question to devs? </div> -- Sandis