Re: [Re: gtkhtml]

[Ettore Perazzoli <ettore helixcode com>]

    Steven> So only suggestions in the form of patches are acceptable?
    Steven> Around 6 months ago I sent several e-mails to Ettore
    Steven> regarding the GNOME dependancies, as well as inquiring
    Steven> about several bugs in the rendering and form submission
    Steven> code.  (Neither of which have been fixed yet, but I am
    Steven> working on fixing them in CscHTML)

  I am  sorry, I cannot  find these emails.   Either you were  using a
different name, or my mail archive is broken, or I cannot use Gnus.

  Anyway, my  position on  this is: I  personally don't want  to spend
time making a GTK+-only GtkHTML because I don't think it's worthwhile.
But if you submit patches and they don't break, they can go in.

  You did the patch anyway, so it would have been no more work for you
to submit it into GtkHTML rather than forking.

    Steven> I do not believe that any effort would be made to make
    Steven> sure that future additions to GtkHTML would continue to
    Steven> work without GNOME dependancies (so the patch would be
    Steven> short lived at best)

  This  does not  make much  sense to  me.  Now  you have  to maintain
CscHTML  anyway,  don't  you?   You  could  help  maintaining  GtkHTML
instead.

    Steven> I think that such a patch would cause confusion amongst
    Steven> end users.

  We can have a separate GNOME-aware library in the gtkhtml package.

    Steven> Having  been informed  that fixing  rendering  issues with
    Steven> GtkHTML  was  no longer  a  priority  (since  it is  "good
    Steven> enough" to view e-mail for Evolution) I knew that the only
    Steven> way to get these things fixed would be to do them myself.

  I don't get it.  If you  commit rendering fixes to GtkHTML, they are
certainly going in.  And of course we are fixing the rendering bugs we
are aware of.

    Steven> Hence: A fork

  Hence:  a complete  waste of  time and  resources.  And  yet another
pointless flame war.

-- 
Ettore