Re: Question about html widget.

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:28, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I don't think there's really a situation; I mean:
>  - clearly the only really viable engines for *web browsing*
>    (vs. limited lightweight use) are khtml and gecko. 
>    gecko is being split out into a library that will be more 
>    usable, khtml could be gtk-ported.
>  - neither is viable for Evolution composer, because they don't have
>    editing. so we're stuck with gtkhtml for forseeable future 
>    in at least this dedicated role.

BTW, Evolution doesn't  necessarily *have* to use the same engine for
editing and rendering.  One could just use an editor widget that is
different from the rendering widget, as long as the spacing/fonts are
the same and you are careful enough when generating the HTML from the
text.  So Evolution could, for example, keep using GtkHTML3 for editing
but use Gecko for display, at least in principle.

Unfortunately, Gecko is not a particularly attractive option right now
because of the well-known difficulties involved with integrating it with
a GTK app.  But if we had a lighter/nicer GtkMozEmbed or if KHTML was
ported to GTK, it would be reasonable to consider a switch.

-- Ettore

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]