On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:03:46PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > > are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine > > > or > > > to improve QTextBrowser's HTML support? > > > > WebEngine is plainly inacceptable as dependency for QTextBrowser which is > > part > > of the QtWidgets module. > > How does my question suggest that?
My fault, I missed the "or" in your sentence - "migrate to using QtWebEngine [...] to improve QTextBrowser's HTML support" - and that changed the meaning ;-} > Evidently neither of the "full-fledged browser in a widget" libraries should > be > dependencies for QTB... > > > This was already true for WebKit, WebEngine is even worse. > > It sure is =) > > > How QTextBrowser renders HTML is kind of irrelevant for how .qch files are > > rendered, when there are other options. > > Yes, as long as there are other options. WebKit is deprecated, WebEngine is > top-heavy, both are probably overkill for documentation rendering (or, if not, > what we'd need would be a browser plugin allowing to peruse that documentation > in one's favourite browser). > > To put my question into perspective: I'd be all for using a lightweight > rendering backend rather than WebKit or WebEngine. QTB is just a bit too light > but still it's what you get (in Assistant) when you build Qt from the > aggregate > tarball or install it via the official installers. A while ago I played a bit around with [Qt]WebKit sources and tried to cut it down to a bare bones Qt doc renderer. One certainly can get things smaller quickly, Webkit source *is* quite modular after all, but at some point there are question like "what about video? JS?", and while "No" might be an acceptable answer from a user's point of view it's not trivial to amputate there without impacting page history or some rarer-but-existing use cases. Andre' _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
