On 03/02/15 20:25, "André Pönitz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 07:47:14AM +0000, Ziller Eike wrote: >> >> > On Feb 3, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Knoll Lars <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I’d like to mark a few modules as deprecated with 5.5, and most likely >> > remove them from the binary packages with 5.6. These modules are: >> > >> > * Qt WebKit >> >> As long as WebEngine is not (yet?) a “full" replacement of Qt WebKit >> functionality, most notably https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-44221 >>we >> should still include Qt WebKit in our binary packages. Assistant and Qt >> Creator will otherwise only have a QTextBrowser backend for displaying >>help, >> leading to broken looking documentation, since that does not even >>roughly >> support the CSS that we use in Qt documentation. > >I think the main dependency here is that Qt Creator needs to render Qt >documentation. What technology this uses is of secondary interest. It >just needs to be "good enough", and it preferably should not be a lot >bigger >than actually needed for the task. > >WebKit was already a bit of a stretch here, I do not really see WebEngine >as >an improvement in the size and overhead departement. It's a huge club for >a >task that's just a wee bit beyond the QTextBrowser fallback's capabilities >(which was, btw, working reasonably well for a while about two or three >years ago, until some change in the doc style sheet made it really ugly >again). > >Creator would benefit most from a *lightweight* HTML renderer, possibly >thin wrappers around platforms' native renderers, _or_ a doc style that's >usable in QTextBrowser, less so from being used as a pawn in the WebKit vs >WebEngine discussion, both of which are not really good fits for the task. Yes, making the Qt WebView module work on all desktop platforms could be a possible solution. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
