21.05.2019, 19:03, "Bastiaan Veelo" <basti...@veelo.net>: > [skipping many interesting points, sorry] > > On 21/05/2019 16:06, Shawn Rutledge wrote: >> Anyway I think Assistant is one of those cases where I would prefer to >> keep using QTextBrowser and fix it up a bit more to suit, rather than >> switching to a real browser engine. Light weight is a real advantage. >> Creator already takes up enough memory as it is, with its code model >> especially. And documentation doesn’t need most of the fancy HTML >> features either. > > A better QTextBrowser would be very much welcomed, but there may still > be cases where Assistant needs more features. > > The question of what HTML features are necessary depends on the > application. In user applications, Assistant is not used to display code > documentation (which is quite simple) but help files, which may require > a much greater feature set. If it were possible, it could even be > desirable to include small video clips as instructions for performing > certain tasks. So there may still be applications where a full browser > stack would be desirable. One could argue that one should spawn a real > browser instead, but the index and search facilities in Assistant are > invaluable.
FWIW, size-optimized build of QtWebKit with minimal feature set resulted in ~20M binary here, though I've disabled video. While it can be seen aas bloated when compared to QTextBrowser, it includes much more advanced HTML/CSS renderer, supports JavaScript, and includes full-fledged SVG renderer. -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development