Hi Bill!

[ Bill Haneman ]
> >I removed the first possibility, since the extention of Qt Accessibility
> > has already been made.
>
> Well, I disagree with that.  We should list all possibilities even if
> some decisions seem to have been made, otherwise I don't think we can
> have a clear discussion about the decision making process. If #1 has been
> rejected, it should still be discussed and the reasons for rejecting it
> documented in the Wiki. 

I listed the reasons in the section of background facts:
* The work to extend Qt Accessibility has already been made.
* Qt Accessibility is portable.

I could add:
* All KDE widgets are subclasses of Qt widgets and inherit Qt Accessibility 
support.
* Qt Accessibility offers everything that we need for AT-SPI support, so it 
doesn't seem to make sense implementing atk support twice.

But I am probably missing something here. What exactly would be the technical 
difference between #1 and #2?

Olaf

-- 
Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE Accessibility co-maintainer, open standards 
accessibility networker, Protestant theology student and webmaster of 
http://accessibility.kde.org/ and http://www.amen-online.de/
_______________________________________________
kde-accessibility mailing list
kde-accessibility@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-accessibility