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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: .kde.html, khtml's embed tag and frames in konqueror
From:       Lars Knoll <Lars.Knoll () mpi-hd ! mpg ! de>
Date:       1999-08-20 22:25:46
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Lars Knoll wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > For objects, we could perhaps add a virtual createObject() function. 
> > > > The implementation in kbrowser will then take care only of a few object
> > > > types, others (like an embedded KIconView) can then be defined by
> > > > overloading the function.
> > > > 
> > > > IMO we should use the object element for embedding other things than
> > > > HTML frames. It's added to HTML-4 for this purpose, and is now mainly used
> > > > for Java. But we can easily extend this one to embed whatever we want.
> > > > Here it could be nice to use OpenParts. Hmmm... but then on the other hand
> > > > all frames need to be KonqHTMLViews, or we need to pass the createObject 
> > > > call through to the main HTMLView (which is a KonqHTMLView).
> > > 
> > > I can only agree with what you said :-)
> > 
> > Great. So I'll add some sort of createObject function to kbrowser (as soon
> > as I get to (re)implement the object/frame stuff). 
> 
> *looking forward*
>  
> > > ...and I vote against passing createObject calls through.
> > 
> > So we have a KonqHTMLView for every frame. I don't really like the bloat
> > we get there, but it's for sure the cleanest solution.
> 
> I don't like it either, but OTOH passing things around top one "toplevel"
> KonqHTMLView leads to a buggy implementation like we have now....
> (IMHO)
>  
> Hmmm, wait, there's one thing that comes to my mind which makes me think
> that we might consider to make it possible to have *any* kind of frame
> view. If I click on an image in netscape (for example) , in a frame, then
> netscape displays it in the frame ( != html frame) ...
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> (if it's too difficult/complex/bloat to implement, then I vote for the
> html-frame-only way though :-)

Good idea. It would actually be very nice, if we are able to display
images/movies and other stuff in the frame. But to tell you the truth, I'm
a bit clueless how to implement this. You will need to replace the
HTMLView with some other one frame on the fly (when you click on the
image).

Any ideas?

Lars

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