> On Jun 28, 2019, at 10:56, Palaraja, Kavindra <kpalar...@luxoft.com> wrote: > > On 28.06.19, 10:24, "Eike Ziller" <eike.zil...@qt.io> wrote: > >> On 27. Jun 2019, at 15:46, Palaraja, Kavindra <kpalar...@luxoft.com> wrote: >> >> On 27.06.19, 10:47, "Development on behalf of Jaroslaw Kobus" >> <development-boun...@qt-project.org on behalf of jaroslaw.ko...@qt.io> wrote: >> >> QTextBrowser promises to render rich text - isn’t it what we want for >> showing help? If QTextBrowser isn’t able to render properly the static help >> files - what is the other typical usage of it? Why we claim that >> QTextBrowser is able to do things, which in fact it can't? This doesn't show >> a fair message to the user, if we - for our purposes - don't use tools which >> we should. >> .... >> >> OK, if we can't use QTextBrowser, then what are our other options? >> > > ...... > > Again, I’m not in principle against the above functionality, > but I don’t want us to pay the price that is imposed by a full-blown > QtWebEngine. If we cannot severely strip that down, that price is much higher > than necessary for HTML+CSS, and even for HTML+CSS+JavaScript. > > > To clarify, you are not against better functionality in how Creator displays > documentation. But: > > * It can't be QTextBrowser, because it's not a full-blown HTML viewer from > what I've seen in https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-33336
> * It can't be QtWebEngine, because both you and Andre aren't willing to pay > the price I see some other critical voices in this email thread as well. > From your response, I'm only gathering two options: There are other options. https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2019-June/036712.html summarizes many of them. Additionally “strip down QtWebEngine or QtWebKit and support that”. Or, separating "plain and simple API documentation" to be displayed directly an Qt Creator/Assistant from “fancy tutorials” to be displayed by a browser of the user’s choice. > 1. Live with it and hope that somehow this will solve itself in the future -- > there is no evidence from the past years that this is going to happen. Recall > that the ticket we are still debating over is from March 2016. > 2. Give QtWebEngine at least a try, let the users decide in a BETA phase. - a tiny percentage of users use Betas - there already is quite some controversy in this email thread Br, Eike > Kavindra. > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended only for the recipient(s) > named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive them. > They may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended > recipient, please do not read this email or its attachment(s). Furthermore, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of > this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by > replying to this e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment(s) or > copies thereof from your system. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development -- Eike Ziller Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company GmbH Rudower Chaussee 13 D-12489 Berlin eike.zil...@qt.io http://qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Mika Harjuaho Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
