I use rekonq to display HTML parts of emails, and launch it through mutt to do that. As a result many of the files that rekonq is being asked to load do not have a file extension (i.e. they are named something like /tmp/muttu1234, not something.html.) When rekonq loads these files, it usually just displays the HTML source, instead of the rendered HTML. This is true whether rekonq is launched from mutt or elsewhere. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a file called "email" with one line only: Here is <a href=http://www.google.com>the link to google</a> I told you about. 2. Copy that file exactly to email.html: cp email email.html 3. Open rekonq on each file separately: a) rekonq email b) rekonq email.html Actual Results: The file "email" is displayed with the raw source HTML. The file email.html is displayed with rendered HTML. Expected Results: Both files are the same and should be rendered in the same way. Rekonq should probably use libmagic or similar to determine the file type. For example, on those two files, we get: % file email email: HTML document, ASCII text % file email.html email.html: HTML document, ASCII text i.e. the system knows that they are HTML documents. An exception to the above file extension case is when the file actually contains <html> and </html> tags. It seems that rekonq is doing some ad-hoc checking of file type (looking for an extension and/or <html> tags) and rendering accordingly. It would be more robust if libmagic were to be used. Thanks!
Hi, any thoughts about this bug? It's still annoying me in 2.3.0. Is there any way I can help?
I'm sorry to say this is not in any way a rekonq bug, but a qtwebkit missing feature being it NOT able to correctly interpret local files without extensions. I'm trying some tricks to, but this actually seems too much hackish.
Thanks for looking into it Andrea. So, in your opinion should this be raised as a bug against qtwebkit?
yes 2013/5/24 Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313819 > > --- Comment #3 from Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> --- > Thanks for looking into it Andrea. So, in your opinion should this be > raised as > a bug against qtwebkit? > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are the assignee for the bug. >
Done: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-31350
I guess from reading the response from the Qt dev, they think that this should be done in rekonq :-/
I'm pretty convinced this has more sense being done in qtwebkit. But given they won't, I can try implementing it somewhere.
Development on Rekonq ceased four years ago, and it has been unmaintained since then. KDE recommends using Falkon instead.