On Monday 24 September 2001 10:48, Martijn Klingens wrote:
> On Sunday 23 September 2001 14:10, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > Hope the above helps you here.
>
> Certainly. Will look into this. Are you available for any questions I might
> have or is the list preferred for that?

I'm reading this list (even though not answering too much currently), so just 
post them here.

> > It doesn't break binary compatibitly, as the *Impl classes (and the
> > CSSStyleSelector) are the only placesyou should neeed to change the API,
> > and tehse ones are internal to khtml. But still I don't want these
> > features to come into the 2.2 branch. It's amajor feature change and
> > chances are very high it'll break something at the beginning. Correctly
> > parsing style sheets is a rather tricky thing.
>
> Hmm... that's true. Is it possible to run HEAD khtml with 2.2 KDE ? IIRC
> there are #ifdefs in khtml to allow this but I am not sure.

As far as I know it's possible.

> > You have to, as the license says. LGPL means that your company needs to
> > open source all changes you made to khtml (for whatever reason you did
> > so). Only things that are in a different library or in the app itself can
> > be kept close.
>
> Heh, you misunderstood me here :-)
> I know what LGPL means for licensing. What I meant was that it would be
> perfectly possible (and legal) for our app to write special proprietary
> printing code at the application level instead of changing KHTML. Our app
> is a bit special and does not _require_ the changes to be in khtml. It's my
> personal preference to give parts of my work back to the community so
> everyone can benefit from it.
>
> And I am lucky that my boss gives me a decent bit of freedom to do so. Not
> unlimited freedom, though.

In the end your boss is profiting a lot from hard work a few people put into 
this engine. The minimum to honour this is to give something back to the 
community IMO.

> Anyway, I'll look into the DOM specs once I've dug through my remaining
> mail.

Have fun :)

Lars