Why Midori doesn't work in site X but other webkit browsers do?

Asked by i on 2011-06-09

I think I've read once Christian or someone else saying that Midori may not work on some sites because of webkit limitations and that other webkit browsers may work because they have exception rules or something like that.

In my experience Midori will use all the CPU (specially here as I have and old single-core one) and be unusable in some blogspot pages, depending on the plugins people add to them (like 'add me this', 'favorite that', 'look who's talking' and the sort).
This behaviour happens too in http://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/04/18/status-update-of-gnome-3-in-debian-experimental/ (CPU goes to 100% and one can't even scroll the page).
Chrome works fine with that site and today I noticed that Epiphany works too, so would this be a webkit limitation or a Midori bug?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Midori Web Browser Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
John Macdonald
Solved:
2011-06-10
Last query:
2011-06-10
Last reply:
2011-06-10
Avi Romanoff (aroman) said : #1

I can confirm Sergio's question -- I have the same behavior with my Midori, though less frequently with newer versions.

Best John Macdonald (jxtreme42) said : #2

That happens on sites with box shadow. Use the fix described here: http://wiki.xfce.org/midori/faq#scrolling_on_website_xyz_is_very_slow

This should really be done by default, until the next version of webkitgtk is released.

i (iiiiii-deactivatedaccount) said : #3

Hey, thank you John.
I've been changing users and forgot to copy that user style.

At least in the page cited as an example it works. The page takes some time to load and uses the CPU well but after loaded it scrolls smoothly.

i (iiiiii-deactivatedaccount) said : #4

I also agree that if it's possible to incorporate the workaround until it's fixed upstream (and supposing this won't discourage them to fix it) it's a must to do so.
May be subjective but Midori seems more lively now.

i (iiiiii-deactivatedaccount) said : #5

Thanks John M, that solved my question.