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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: KFMIII or KFMII?
From:       René Beutler <rbeutler () g26 ! ethz ! ch>
Date:       1999-02-25 9:26:57
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Lars Knoll wrote:
>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...) 

Wait, wait. Although kdehelp and konquerror both have in common, that they
browse docs, their purpose are totally different. At the moment, those apps are
similar, but this will change, as kdehelp will be extended with full text
search, a content browser, new HTML tags (eg. URL's for widgets) etc. 

Matthias Elter and myself are working on this, you might want to have a look at 
http://www.linuxbox.com/~khelpcenter.

Why blowing konquerror? Apart from this, you would have to change tool- and
menubars for file/help mode, which IMHO would be strange and irritate new users.

Regards,
Rene Beutler

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