On 4 December 2013 20:06, Rogelio Mita <rogeliom...@activitycentral.com>wrote:
> > 2013/12/4 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > >> This is a good concrete example of what worries me. Assuming the custom >> protocol is a slightly better solution (it might not be, it's a bit hard to >> evaluate but... for the sake of this dicussion let's assume it is), what do >> we do? > > > *I think in a loud voice and I mean...* If it is feasible (web-server for > both), I'm a bit extreme but... I prefer to have a single protocol for both > or have no support at all, thinking something in the middle it is not a > good idea =S > > I see your point of course. Though if we can keep the webkit2 implementation the best it can be and, at the same time, allow people like Gonzalo to provide rudimentary support for web activities in deployed/ing software, maybe it's a good compromise... (Thinking out loud too).
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
