On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <k...@carewolf.com> wrote: > Some of this is exactly the reason we want to keep Qt WebKit alive. It may > never be possible to fully replace Qt WebKit with anything Blink/Chromium > based.
I really don’t understand this, there are only two options: 1. Qt Webkit is critical to you and you want to support and maintain it, and do all the work necessary for that; or 2. Qt WebKit is not critical, and so you could simply branch and have a permanent stable release platform similar to what the S60 port did years ago. Currently you seem to be arguing for a third option, wherein all of the WebKit developers need to deal with your port, and be hamstrung by the numerous invasive Qt-isms scattered throughout the codebase, for a port that isn’t considered critical to its own platform. —Oliver _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
