[Interest] Off-topic Web / Webkit talk. (But I'l tie it back to Qt)
Tony Rietwyk
tony at rightsoft.com.au
Mon Apr 14 04:06:26 CEST 2014
Hi Jason,
Wt (witty) can run as you describe with your server code bound directly to
WebKit executing the html, css, etc. in a free-standing exe. But getting
rid of the text and accessing the WebKit objects directly, doesn't really
fix anything! The functionality of the WebKit objects is still the same -
the same workarounds for different OS's, different CSS standards, different
interpretations of the effects on the box model, and on and on. So until
someone comes up with a better model of the browser experience, it won't
improve. Lots of people are trying - Qt with QML, Embacadero's Delphi with
FireMonkey, for example could be candidates. I can't see how they are going
to replace the existing stack anytime soon - no matter how much people would
like them to!
Regards,
Tony.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: interest-bounces+tony=rightsoft.com.au at qt-project.org
> [mailto:interest-bounces+tony=rightsoft.com.au at qt-project.org] On Behalf
> Of Jason H
> Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2014 1:47 AM
> To: Interests Qt
> Subject: [Interest] Off-topic Web / Webkit talk. (But I'l tie it back to
Qt)
>
> I have nothing but contempt for the current state of web development.
> HTML/CSS/JS/DOM/AJAX/MIME, not including your server implementation
> (JS|.NET|Java|PHP) and SQL/NoSQL. I've been asking the question on why
> we can't migrate HTML,CSS,DOM, and MIME to JSON. It would be a
> monumental effort for little gain.
>
> But I've also been using Witty, a C++ web toolkit that mimics Qt.
Basically, you
> only get push a DIV element (automatic) and the library takes care of the
rest.
> This is a great step in the right direction. But it is still subject to
limitations
> of HTML/CSS/JS/DOM/AJAX/MIME, and the browser implementations
> thereof. (The obsoleting of XP and IE6 and the rejoicing of various web
devs
> at not having to support IE6 is what got me on this particular track.)
>
> In Qt we have a webkit implementation. (I told you I was going to tie it
back
> to Qt ;-) ) Webkit is client-side. What I am thinking is if there was a
server-
> side webkit that communicated directly (or as close to) the client webkit
as
> possible, over say websockets. In my mind, this would get us closer to
using
> Qt for web apps. If we could program Qt with server side webkit objects
(I'll
> call these subclasses of QServerWidgets) so that we can create the widget
> hierarchies which communicate to the standard Webkit client-side
libraries.
> Creating a QServerWidget creates the corresponding WebKit widget. I'm no
> Webkit expert. But I think this would more elegantly
> replace HTML/CSS/JS/DOM/AJAX/MIME, without having to go through
> standards processes. And maybe Webkit is bound
> to HTML/CSS/JS/DOM/AJAX/MIME internally for the time being.
>
> But, in the end, if we handled QWidgets and QServerWidgets the same
> (QPA?) we could code a Qt application and get a web version, a mobile
> version, and a desktop version from the same code base.
>
> I am no means Webkit person, I only have a basic understanding of webkit.
>
> Comments?
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
More information about the Interest
mailing list