From kfm-devel  Wed Feb 18 19:45:21 2004
From: Zack Rusin <zack () kde ! org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:45:21 +0000
To: kfm-devel
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: kdenonbeta/kdom/css
Message-Id: <200402181445.21430.zack () kde ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kfm-devel&m=107713359113799

On Monday 16 February 2004 06:02, Rob Buis wrote:
> Well, you may have a point about the lack of communication, sorry...
> But it wasnt always easy in the past to find the right discussion
> channels. I mean if there was a #khtml irc channel, we would have
> been nagging Dirk and co a lot more :)

There is :) We're idling most of the time, but we're there.

> I guess there are some future paths for ksvg :
>
> 1) Integrate fully inside khtml repository.
> 2) Install more khtml headers so it is easier to extend khtml, even
> with code outside khtml repository.
> 3) Keep working on the kdom prototype, having a functional dom at the
> cost of code duplication and doubled testing efforts.
> 4) Stick to the hacks we used for KSVG now to keep the half-working
> DOM.
>
> IMHO number 4 is something we want to avoid, as Niko has already
> explained.
>
> I would like to hear opinions on benefits and downsides to 1 and 2?
> BTW is there a better place (mailing list?) to discuss things like
> this? Cheers,

Of course, I'll be strongly pushing against #3 and #4. It's also pretty 
obvious #2 is the most desirable. Lately I have very little time to do 
actual coding but if there's something I'd be willing to spend time on 
it, it's this. The reason being simply that we have this great library, 
that we can extend some more to produce a truly superior product to 
anything else. 

To be honest I never looked at KSVG code so I'm not sure what's really 
needed, but if you'll simply list what you'll need I'll start 
incrementally working on each one of those.

Zack

-- 
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949