Re: Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread Sylvain Petreolle
they arent needed after the compilation. > yes, i know > but last time i saw they have partially used own compat librairies > (who use native windows calls) > = Sylvain Petreolle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259 "Don't think you

Re: Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread fenix
>De: Adam Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sujet: Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml >A: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Copie à: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 06:22:37 -0800 (PST) > > >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >Why not just port the

Re: Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread fenix
>De: Adam Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sujet: Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml >A: Adam Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Copie à: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 06:28:09 -0800 (PST) > >--- Adam Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >&g

Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread Adam Treat
--- Adam Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Why not just port the GPL version of Qt to Windows? The kde-cygwin project is >doing that > > And, i don't like the port idea, because trolltech use Qt under windows as main >product, and > > porting the GPL version

Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread Adam Treat
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Why not just port the GPL version of Qt to Windows? The kde-cygwin project is >doing that right ... > I don't think it's a good idea :( > Now, we only need a few classes and code for porting KWQ to windows specific code >(and more > platform optimised than Qt). >

Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread fenix
Hi >What's the use of win32 port of the GPL version of QT for wine? We don't want >wine to depend on Qt, if we wanted this we could just use the normal Unix >version of Qt. i totaly agree with you :) I don't see any need for porting Qt to windows >The khtml-win32 project is much more usefull

Re: Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread fenix
> >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >Just two things for those thinking about khtml: >> > >> >1) The kdebindings package contains C-language bindings for khtml >> > (kde_HTML*), so C++ wouldn't be a requirement for calling khtml >> > (this does not affect the qt-replacement api of course)

Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread Roderick Colenbrander
What's the use of win32 port of the GPL version of QT for wine? We don't want wine to depend on Qt, if we wanted this we could just use the normal Unix version of Qt. The khtml-win32 project is much more usefull for wine. That project is actually porting the qt wrapper Apple made for use in Saf

Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread Adam Treat
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > >Just two things for those thinking about khtml: > > > >1) The kdebindings package contains C-language bindings for khtml > > (kde_HTML*), so C++ wouldn't be a requirement for calling khtml > > (this does not affect the qt-replacement api of course). > > yes

Re: Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-20 Thread fenix
Hi, >Just two things for those thinking about khtml: > >1) The kdebindings package contains C-language bindings for khtml > (kde_HTML*), so C++ wouldn't be a requirement for calling khtml > (this does not affect the qt-replacement api of course). yes, as qtc in kdebindings is for qt :) >2) There

Some more thoughts on khtml

2003-01-19 Thread Joerg Mayer
Just two things for those thinking about khtml: 1) The kdebindings package contains C-language bindings for khtml (kde_HTML*), so C++ wouldn't be a requirement for calling khtml (this does not affect the qt-replacement api of course). 2) There is a project to port KWC to win32: KHTML Win32 Nativ