[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: KFMIII or KFMII?
From:       Lars Knoll <knoll () mpi-hd ! mpg ! de>
Date:       1999-02-25 10:19:03
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Lars Knoll wrote:
>
>> The API is not too different, so porting wouldn't be much work. But khtml is
>> (like konqueror) work in progress and is (at the moment) not as stable as
>> khtmlw. So If you wan't kfmII and kdehelp to be stable and usable, we should
>> perhaps better stick with khtmlw.
>
>Well this is of course the HEAD branch... although, what about some sort
>of integration of konqueror and kdehelp?  Say kio_help?
>
>After a little more thought I'm thinking it might be a good idea to leave
>kdehelp and KFMII using khtmlw, and only enable the compilation of them if
>khtmlw is explicitly installed..  kio_help and konqueror of course would
>replace them.

Thought a bit more too, and I agree with you, that kdehelp should be
integrated into konqueror in the long run (I never really understood why we
had two apps for that anyway and why "man:bla" didn't work in kfm -- except for
historic reasons...) 

But maybe it could still be worthwile moving kfm to khtml. It's about 10
minutes work, and it'll make life easier for developing khtml. Those who wan't
to keep a stable version of kfm can always keep a version linked against the
1.1 libs.

Lars

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]