Kai Koehne wrote:
>> 1) make qttools depend on qtwebengine
---
I'm clearly not alone in thinking that QWE is serious overkill for
documentation
browsing. I'd rather explore solutions that involve using a HTML-rendering
framework that's even leaner than QtWebkit in a "minimal" configuration. Kh
> On Saturday November 11 2017 15:05:53 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we could add "minimal" configuration for QtWebKit in Coin, with
>> disabled
>> QML API, multimedia features, and "extra" stuff like WebGL and geolocation.
>
> Meanwhile, what would be a proper combination of options
On sábado, 11 de novembro de 2017 06:25:43 PST Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Or use built-in HTTP server to avoid disk operations
One more reason to add an HTTP server framework.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
On Saturday November 11 2017 15:05:53 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>Perhaps we could add "minimal" configuration for QtWebKit in Coin, with
>disabled
>QML API, multimedia features, and "extra" stuff like WebGL and geolocation.
Meanwhile, what would be a proper combination of options to set to achie
> On Saturday November 11 2017 15:05:53 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> Of course it won't be nearly lean and mean as what you described above,
>> however
>> it requires virtually no extra maintenance and is unlikely to break on user
>> content.
>> And it will reduce binary size substantially a
On Saturday November 11 2017 15:05:53 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>Of course it won't be nearly lean and mean as what you described above, however
>it requires virtually no extra maintenance and is unlikely to break on user
>content.
>And it will reduce binary size substantially and cut off depende
> out of the .qch file. But we
> might as well just extract the .html as files, and work from there...
Or use built-in HTTP server to avoid disk operations
>
> Kai
>
> From: Interest on behalf
> of Thiago Macieira
>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 10:10:2
and
work from there...
Kai
From: Interest on behalf of
Thiago Macieira
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 10:10:26 PM
To: interest@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] [Development] Short/medium term evolution of the
Assistant?
On Friday, 10 November 2017 11:41
> On Saturday November 11 2017 14:44:42 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>> Not yet. The closest thing that exists at downloads.qt.io for now is [1], so
>> far
>> all pre-releases were published at [2]
>>
>> [1] http://download.qt.io/snapshots/ci/qtwebkit/5.9/latest/src/submodules/
>> Note that "5.9
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:03:46PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>>> > are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine
>>> > or
>>> > to improve QTextBrowser's HTML support?
>>>
>>> WebEngine is plainly inacceptable as dependency for QTextBrowser which is
>>> part
On Saturday November 11 2017 14:44:42 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Not yet. The closest thing that exists at downloads.qt.io for now is [1], so
> far
> all pre-releases were published at [2]
>
> [1] http://download.qt.io/snapshots/ci/qtwebkit/5.9/latest/src/submodules/
> Note that "5.9.2" means Q
> On Saturday November 11 2017 11:56:49 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> And sorry for the rapid-firing, but how should one interpret 5.212 vs. 5.9 in
> the branch names on code.qt.io/.../qtwebkit ? Is the former less coupled to a
> specific Qt version, for instance?
Yes, exactly.
>
> Keep up th
On Saturday November 11 2017 13:32:41 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>No
>
>http://qtwebkit.blogspot.com/2016/08/qtwebkit-im-back.html
Now that's interesting! Do the tarballs available via Qt
(qtwebkit-opensource-src-*) follow these developments - basically, do they
contain snapshots of QtWebKit th
> On Saturday November 11 2017 02:57:01 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>
>>> Back to the topic of this discussion. We've recently switched to Qt WebKit
>>> 5.212
>
> What Qt version does that correspond to?
Any Qt version >= 5.4
>WebKit is just being maintained for compatibility with its Qt depe
On Saturday November 11 2017 02:57:01 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>> Back to the topic of this discussion. We've recently switched to Qt WebKit
>> 5.212
What Qt version does that correspond to? WebKit is just being maintained for
compatibility with its Qt dependencies, no?
>> , and sadly it didn
11.11.2017, 02:49, "Oleg Shparber" :
> Hi,
>
> On 10 November 2017 at 15:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> Last but not least: Zeal is indeed very closely related to Dash. So close in
>> fact that it cannot advocate Mac compatibility for licensing/legal reasons,
>> and that it would probably be d
Hi,
On 10 November 2017 at 15:06, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Last but not least: Zeal is indeed very closely related to Dash. So close
> in fact that it cannot advocate Mac compatibility for licensing/legal
> reasons, and that it would probably be delicate even to provide it via
> MacPorts.
>
Ze
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:03:46PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > > are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine
> > > or
> > > to improve QTextBrowser's HTML support?
> >
> > WebEngine is plainly inacceptable as dependency for QTextBrowser which is
> > part
> > o
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 01:10:26PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 10 November 2017 11:41:56 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> > > are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine
> > > or to improve QTextBrowser's HTML support?
> >
> > WebEngine is plainly inacceptable
On Friday November 10 2017 20:41:56 André Pönitz wrote:
> > are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine or
> > to improve
> > QTextBrowser's HTML support?
>
> WebEngine is plainly inacceptable as dependency for QTextBrowser which
> is part of the QtWidgets module.
H
On Friday, 10 November 2017 11:41:56 PST André Pönitz wrote:
> > are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine
> > or to improve QTextBrowser's HTML support?
>
> WebEngine is plainly inacceptable as dependency for QTextBrowser which
> is part of the QtWidgets module.
Bu
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:02:02PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Friday November 10 2017 13:19:39 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>
> >(switched mailing list to interest since this post is not about qt
> >development per se)
>
> Where Qt development does come in is with this:
>
> are there plans t
On Friday November 10 2017 13:19:39 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
>(switched mailing list to interest since this post is not about qt
>development per se)
Where Qt development does come in is with this:
are there plans to retire QtWebKit support, migrate to using QtWebEngine or to
improve QTextBrowser
On Friday November 10 2017 13:19:39 Samuel Stirtzel wrote:
Hi,
> are you aware of the Qt based Zeal [1] documentation browser project?
> The project shares code with Dash [2] (basically the same thing for MacOS).
>
> IMHO it is a good alternative to Qt Assistant and IIRC there also was
> a plugi
2017-11-10 12:40 GMT+01:00 René J.V. Bertin :
> Hi,
>
> I've been tinkering a bit with building the Assistant from the 5.9 branch
> head against my installed Qt 5.8.0, using a static lib build of the QtHelp
> library. That requires only a few trivial patches and the first impression is
> that th
25 matches
Mail list logo
