> On 27 Jun 2019, at 11:25, Bastiaan Veelo <basti...@veelo.net> wrote: > > On 27/06/2019 06:57, Richard Weickelt wrote: >>> Qt used to make a point on having superior documentation to most other >>> frameworks, and it was (and still is) one of the reasons for its success. >>> Whatever we can do to help make the documentation better is something I >>> think we should do. > [...] >> I stopped using the integrated help and QtAssisant at some point and now I >> am exclusively using the online documentation in my regular browser. I can't >> give an exact reason, but I can see a correlation of multiple things: > [...] >> 5) There was the point where Qt's online docs started to look better. >> Cripser fonts, more whitespace, better code highlighting. >> >> I guess no matter how hard you try and how much effort you put into it, I'll >> probably never use QtCreator's integrated help again. > > You just listed one of the deficiencies of QTextBrowser as a reason to not > use Qt for browsing its documentation. That's like saying it's bad, so there > is no point in making it good.
QTextBrowser was never meant as a full HTML5 rendering engine, and it will never be. I honestly don’t think implementing (close to) full CSS 2.1 support for it makes a lot of sense. I’ve implemented CSS 2.1 support for KHTML way back and adding that to QTextBrowser is a huge job. And since we have something that can render HTML5 perfectly it doesn’t make sense to do all that work. Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
