<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/3/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Shane King</b> <<a href="mailto:kde@dontletsstart.com">kde@dontletsstart.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Harald Sitter wrote:<br>> Arrrhoy!<br>><br>> Since Qt 4.4 is offering a lot more possability (like html rendering) for us
<br>> than 4.3, and also because it seems to be faster in terms of SVG rendering we<br>> might want to switch to it (earliest possability would be preview 2 since<br>> there are some prety big performance issues in
4.4 atm).<br><br>Maybe this is a stupid question, or the wrong time to bring it up, but<br>anyway ...<br><br>Why do we need Qt 4.4 for html rendering? What's wrong with khtml?<br>Aren't they essentially the same code base anyway?
<br><br>If we're trying to avoid khtml because we prefer native Qt solutions,<br>why are we using KDE at all? I ask because not having to deal with the<br>rest of KDE would make my life much simpler from a Windows perspective,
<br>and would be more be practical with Qt 4.4 having Phonon. In any case it<br>seems like Qt's plan is to "embrace and extend" all the useful stuff<br>from KDE anyway.<br><br>I remember way back in the day some apps had "optional" KDE integration:
<br>they'd compile as plain Qt apps or with some KDE extensions if so<br>configured. I wonder if things could work like that.<br><br>As far as the vote goes, I'd say AYE, since we're miles away from a<br>release I think now is a better time to switch than later.
<br><br>Shane.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>we need qt 4.4 for its "widgets on qgv" support, which makes it possible to place a html widget in the context view. that's not possible at all with qt 4.3/khtml at the moment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>there was a discussion about writing amarok 2 as a pure qt application some time ago (a year?), but it was decided not to do that (thank god!).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>max</div><br> </div>