KDE browser work team

[Adam Treat]

On Friday 03 July 2009 04:56:44 am David Faure wrote:
> On Thursday 02 July 2009, Adam Treat wrote:
> > oreover, modifying konq source to use an entirely different config dialog
> > if kpart != khtml strikes me as very bad idea.
>
> Sorry but this is yet another uninformed comment on the subject... The
> config dialog pages are not part of konqueror sources! They are dlopened
> kcmodules. We can easily dlopen different ones depending on the current
> part.

Hi, just got back...

Regardless, whether the config modules are part of konq sources or not, they 
are not geared for non-khtml engines (or at least were not when I last worked 
on this problem)  What's more, swapping out these config modules for ones that 
are webkit centric is still not a good idea.  Changing the cookie dialog to an 
entirely different one when webkit VS khtml is used is going to confuse the 
hell out of users.  My only point is that the work is not trivial and that 
people shouldn't naively think that a webkitpart will be on same footing as 
khtmlpart when swapped out today.

> (And the homepage is entirely handled by konqueror, completely unrelated to
> the html part).

Yes, some of the modules are tied to khtml and some are not.  That is entirely 
unremarkable and I would think obvious given that Konqueror does a lot more 
than display web pages.  The home page example was must a lazy listing given 
that I was on a 16 hour flight to France at the time.

Cheers,

Adam