Re: Question about html widget.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:45:14PM -0500, Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 15:28, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >  - 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.
> BTW, it might be easier to port WebCore than KHTML.
> The reason is that Apple didn't port the KHTML code by modifying it
> directly; instead, they wrote replacements for a bunch of Qt/KDE classes
> (just enough to make the port work), and it should be relatively simple
> to port their replacement classes from Cocoa to GTK.
> It might be a cool hack for a hacker with some time in his/her hands...

For sure.  Forking khtml would be silly; if we use khtml, it should be
some kind of port that will be accepted upstream and shared with
apple/kde. Otherwise you just aren't getting enough critical mass to
have a chance of handling most web pages.


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