Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

Mike Hearn m.hearn at
Tue Apr 29 07:47:03 CDT 2003

> Is this in the context of the IWebBrowser interface? That is, how we go 
> about providing an implementation for that interface? Well if so, I think
> it would be nice if we could have both khtml and gecko as backends for
> it. In fact, I think it'd be easier to have mozilla as a backend as they
> already implement the IWebBrowser interface. But that's just me talking,
> I should give this a try -- but after the 0.9 release! :)

A gecko backend would be handy for apps that use MSHTML just as a
convenience for browsing the web yeah, for apps that actually use the
various quirks of IE and such we'd need to be able to control our own
fork. Not sure how we'd detect which one to use.

> Yes, I agree on this one -- I've said multiple times that implementing the
> theming API is the way forward. In fact, separating the drawing code will
> cleanup the controls I think, as we'll have a better separation between the
> presentation and logic layers. Moreover, it will allow us to have a cleaner
> solution for the win311, win95, win98, winxp looks.
> But again, this looks like a post 1.0 project. We need to fix a lot of 
> things in the controls for the 1.0 release anyway. I think it's more 
> important to the a working set of controls, rather than a themable set
> of broken controls :).

Agreed. Theming and WebBrowser implementation is cool, but there's still
way too much work to do just to let people install things reliably etc

Mike Hearn <m.hearn at>
QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

More information about the wine-devel mailing list