anthony, my second reaction: this is absolutely superb news [that you're working on the gobject bindings].
the reason for that is that, thanks to the background that you have in pyjd you have a comprehensive understanding of what's involved, and you appreciate that it's not "bullshit" that *all* DOM functionality is required, function-for-function, property-for-property, bug-for-bug. if on the remote chance that you _don't_ appreciate this, you will soon enough find out why. from the webkit-gtk project's perspective, the fact that pyjd can be used to put some real teeth behind the gobject bindings means that the webkit-gtk project actually stands a chance of becoming something useful, useable and stable. in other words, it'll give the webkit-gtk gobject bindings a real thorough workout. it's simply not possible to have even one function or property out of several thousand, either missing, non-functional, awkward to use or worse unstable. i'll leave it in your capable hands, and also i'll notify the sugar-devel mailing list that you're involved and on the case, because i just wrote, only a few days ago, an assessment of the situation which, not knowing that you were involved, concluded that the best thing that the OLPC team could do is to *revert* the decision to replace hulahop with webkit-gtk. now that i know that you're involved, and because you have such a comprehensive understanding of pyjd, i have confidence that you can work with the webkit-gtk team to stabilise the bindings and undo the damage done by mark rowe to the webkit-gtk project's long-term usefulness. l.
