On Mon Jun 7 01:02:06 BST 2010, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > all i know is that QWebElement is far from complete, and is really > incredibly awkward to use. it's a long long way away from looking > like the W3C DOM functions and properties it's supposed to present > (cloneNode has been renamed to clone, and doesn't take the necessary > boolean argument for example).
As a convenience API, I'm guessing that some of the methods were renamed for self-consistency, rather than consistency with the DOM naming, and for simplicity as opposed to exposing the full underlying API. > so i wanted to know what the developers' reactions and intentions are > wrt. QtWebKit. is the intent that QtWebKit be a proper and full peer > to javascript bindings, or is the intent that it have a... limited > (and ultimately unsatisfactory) subset of W3C DOM functionality? To get an answer to those questions, you would be better off asking on the QtWebKit mailing list: http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-qt You might also find it worthwhile asking on the #qtwebkit IRC channel on Freenode: irc://chat.freenode.net/#qtwebkit David _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list [email protected] http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
