Re: gtkhtml2 vs. gtkhtml1

tis 2002-09-17 klockan 12.54 skrev Michael Meeks:
> Hi Biswapesh,
> On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 07:19, Biswapesh Chattopadhyay wrote:
> > 2) To render help pages and show HTML mail, we do not need:
> 	Right; and there is a good argument for having 2 choices; a
> light-weight feature-lean, small, 'editable' gtkhtml1 port; and then on
> the other hand the larger, slower, but 'all singing, all dancing' gecko
> engine.
> 	The thing is that for Evolution, we will have to maintain and have
> ported gtkhtml1 to Gnome 2.0, which has functional editing, and a huge
> amount of effort in terms of performance features, editing, undo/redo,
> etc. etc. put into it.

Yes, some people have said that adding editing to Gtkhtml2 would be too
much work. I've not heard any of the developers of Gtkhtml1 express an
opinion in this matter though. That would be a lot more interesting than
hearing people guessing.

And yes, it took long time in GtkHtml1 which from what I understand had
a really ugly code base when the work was started. Also the UI is all
there and it would be a job of porting that to use GtkHtml2 code base

> 	So - the question is - is there room/demand for gtkhtml2 which 
>       targets an interesting space between Gtkhtml1 (ported to G2),
>       and Gecko - and has a number of issues, as previously discussed.

Most of the issues are now fixed by Sun and Wipro (thanks guys!) and it
now works very well in for example Yelp. I don't think that it makes
sense to have both GtkHtml1, GtkHtml2 and Gecko.

Though I see that we should probably have GtkHtmlX and Gecko (where X is
1 or 2). From what I heard someone is going to implement DOM and CSS
into GtkHtml1? If so, has it really been looked into that this work is
not more than adding editing to GtkHtml2?

  Mikael Hallendal

Mikael Hallendal                micke codefactory se
CodeFactory AB        
Office: +46 (0)8 587 583 05     Cell: +46 (0)709 718 918

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