kdewebkit moved to kdereview

Albert Astals Cid tsdgeos at yahoo.es
Tue Oct 27 09:28:21 GMT 2009


--- El mar, 27/10/09, Dawit A. <adawit at kde.org> escribió:

> De: Dawit A. <adawit at kde.org>
> Asunto: Re: kdewebkit moved to kdereview
> Para: kde-core-devel at kde.org
> Fecha: martes, 27 de octubre, 2009 07:00
> On Monday 26 October 2009 14:41:23
> Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > A Dilluns, 26 d'octubre de 2009, Marco Martin va
> escriure:
> > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Albert Astals
> Cid <aacid at kde.org>
> wrote:
> > > > A Diumenge, 25 d'octubre de 2009, Urs Wolfer
> va escriure:
> > > >> On Sunday 25 October 2009 20:31:25
> Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > >> > A Diumenge, 25 d'octubre de 2009,
> Urs Wolfer va escriure:
> > > >> > > I have just moved the
> kdewebkit lib from
> > > >> > > 
> playground/libs/webkitkde/kdewebkit into kdereview. It's the
> KDE
> > > >> > >  integration part of
> QtWebKit which is used directly in many apps
> > > >> > > and libs already (...which
> does *not* include the WebKit KPart).
> > > >> > > Any KDE app is supposed to
> move to this integration lib when it is
> > > >> > > in kdelibs (plans are to move
> it to kdelibs/kdewebkit).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It requires an up-to-date
> kdelibs because of recent changes in
> > > >> > > KIO.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > There is still a copy of it in
> playground/libs/webkitkde/kdewebkit
> > > >> > > in order to allow building the
> WebKit KPart without kdereview.
> > > >> > > Please do not work anymore
> with this copy, but use the kdereview
> > > >> > > copy! I will drop the
> playground copy as soon as has been moved to
> > > >> > > kdelibs.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What's the use case of this?
> > > >>
> > > >> Many distributions create packages for
> the WebKit KPart. That's why I
> > > >> do not want to depenend on kdelibs trunk
> and kdereview parts. It would
> > > >> only introduce additional complexity.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what i asked, what i asked is why
> this code should go to
> > > > kdelibs, what does it give over the
> technologies we already have there?
> > >
> > > the most important thing is to have something
> that people would use.
> > > right now even most of kde developers are using
> firefox, because there
> > > are many many sites that with khtml simply won't
> work.
> > > with webkit one can hope that site creators will
> test the site on some
> > > variant of it, with khtml we will be always
> condemned to chase them
> > > and unbreak khtml only after the damage is done.
> > 
> > Talk to anyone that understands how webkit works and
> will tell you that the
> > mythical bug-for-bug "feature" with safari/chrome does
> not exist, so
> >  basically you end up using webkit-qt instead of
> khtml and having the same
> >  problems of using a very minor browser noone
> tests against.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not
> entitled to your own 
> facts ; so can you please point us to these people who
> understand how webkit 
> works so we can ask this very question ? 
> 

No, sadly i can't since they already said on IRC they have given up trying to make people understand this, so obviously they don't want to be dragged into this discussion.

But the reasons seem obvious to me, Safari is based on a given webkit revision, Chrome in a different one and QtWebkit in a different one, so they have different bugs. They are close enough, yes, but so is KHTML and that still doesn't give us the bug-for-bug feature.

Albert


      




More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list