> On Friday 09 February 2001 08:27, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > [...]
> > This then boils down to the problem that we need QT3 to use the RichText engine.
> > And since KDE does not compile with the (still alpha) QT3....
> > 
> > So we are at a point of being unable to continue until the whole of KDE/koffice can
> > be compiled with QT3.
> > The alternative is to backport the classes, but this has to be done a number of times
> > until we reach a release of QT3/KDE.. (Which I am not going to invest time in ;)
> 
> Hmm, and I was starting with another alternative... Rebuilding KWord around the current
> QTextEdit (and accepting its limitations for now :), so that when Qt 3 is out, only
> the final integration needs to be done. This is assuming that the QTextEdit doesn't
> change too much between the one we have and the final one - I'm not sure
> this assumption stands, though.

For what I see is that this is probably more trouble then its wourth..
- classes and datamembers have moved, so loading/saving well have to be redone afterwards.
- rendering of text won't be done correctly since the styles don't 'fit' in the QT RT.
- the extending of rendering and data stuff is not present in the current one, and therefor
  a redesign will have to be made with the new stuff..

> > - Extend the file format to make it possible to have styles in another file. 
> >   The styles are embedded into the xml that contains the text, I really want to
> >   be able to seperate that in either a new tar or in a seperate styles-template.xml file
> >   inside the same tar.
> 
> Can't be a new tar. People move a file from a computer to another one and they
> expect stuff to work the same there.

True, agreed.

> Of course what we could do is a 
> "Save Template" that creates a new template for the template dialog, like 
> KPresenter does.

KWord has a similar funtion. I have not completely figured out a perfect design for
styles anyway.. 
But, yes styles will have to be exported in a template (as it is being done now allready btw)

> > How to proceed;
> > 
> > I believe that the branch was nice to get this development done, but brances only
> > work for short periods of time (my original estimate was 4 to 6 weeks).
> > So I think it is best to continue development in HEAD, and just forget the branch 
> > ever existed. 
> Hmmm. Well, I'll happily do as you say since I'm just starting on KWord, but...
> :(
> I always hate this kind of situation, where we have to work on short-term
> issues because we can't tackle the long-term solution yet.
> This means, we know that some of the stuff we do will have to be dropped
> for sure later on :(

Yeah, I know. I 'solved' this by not working on kword.. But that is not helping the users..

-- 
Thomas Zander                                            zander@earthling.net
The only thing worse than failure is the fear of trying something new
_______________________________________________
Koffice-devel mailing list
Koffice-devel@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel