These are all good reasons why a fast, light implementation of SvgTiny is a really good idea. And we have one, and it works well for the kind of simple GUI graphics that show up in touch interfaces and on toolbars. So I ask again: What's the process for lobbying to keep QtSvg as a supported implementation of SvgTiny?
Cheers, Martin On 12-01-11 05:35 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 11 de January de 2012 08.59.31, Uwe Rathmann wrote: >> I'm also not thrilled about having to introduce a complete Web Browser >> ( even the time of cross compiling Qt gets doubled ) + QGV to embedded >> devices with limited resources. > > A device with limited resources but powerful enough that rasterising SVG on > the fly isn't an issue? > >> But isn't this a problem of missing APIs and modularization of the >> QtWebKit module only ? > > It can't be done. > >> I wouldn't mind to use its SVG renderer ( as it seems to be the better >> one ), if it wouldn't have the requirement for all the other stuff, that >> has nothing to do with the simple SVG -> QPixmap functionality. > > The SVG code is about half of WebKit. Plus it pulls in another fourth of > webkit in terms of the JavaScript interpreter. > > So if you complain that WebKit is big, remember that it's big *because* of > SVG, not in spite of it. > -- Martin Holmes University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre (mhol...@uvic.ca) _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest