> On Friday 19 November 2010 21:10:04 you wrote: > > My point being, none of these browsers are Linux-centered. Rekonq is > > intrinsically linked to KDE, and will for the foreseeable future have > > most of its users on a Linux distribution. So, with regard to > > copy-paste, given the difference of platform, it is perfectly legitimate > > NOT to look at what the most used browsers, which are built (again, with > > regard to copy-paste) for different needs, do. > > I don't think so. I think that following this path we will reinvent the > wheel again and implement a konqueror clone.
I'm not sure to follow your logic (and again, sorry to keep pestering you with this, but I'd like to get the bottom of it). Accepting the premise that the CUBB (Clear Url Bar Button) is a worthwile addition for the purpose of copy-paste on X (which I hope you will agree to), I could see two reasons not to include it: a) it adds "yet another button" b) having "yet another button" is acceptable, but this is a slippery slope I don't think a) is a good reason. Having a simple, useable GUI is an excellent thing, but removing functionality in order to gain more simplicity is not (useability is not only about simplicity). It's certainly (for better or worse) not in the KDE philosophy. With regards to b), it's only a slippery slope if you let it be that. The main issue with Konqueror, from my point of view, is that it fails at UNIX philosophy by trying to do too many things at once. Rekonq, on the other hand, remains solely focused on web browsing, and there is no risk of it turning into a bloated piece of software in the foreseeable future. Just my two cents. Cheers, Emm _______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
