[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]

RE: [XaraXtreme-dev] Executing Default Web Browser?

> Neil,
> > Yes please, that would be very helpful. Otherwise we're going to
have to
> > leave the help out of 0.5.
> >
> >> Is there someone that
> >> runs KDE who could tell me:
> >> a) what the test program returns, and
> >
> > I have a SUSE VM I can try that runs KDE, but it has no wx or dev
> > packages on it - it's just a base install. Can you send me the test
> > program?
> The one I attached before. Attached again. Instructions for compiling
> it are at the top (one line).
> >> b) what the equivalent of gnome-www-browser is on KDE (I seem to
> > remember
> >>    there being some switch between Konqueror and whatever else but
> >>    about 5 years since I've used a KDE system).
> >
> > What is gnome-www-browser? I don't have a package of that name
> > on my FC4 which is running gnome desktop. And no programs called
> > gnome-www-browser or gnome-www-default-browser. ?
> Oh. So typing "gnome-www-browser" does not launch a web browser
> on FC4? 


> 3Well that sounds like the end of that idea. I had assumed it
> was a gnome thing but it looks like it a debian & ubuntu only thing.
> So much for that plan. Could you just try "locate gnome-www-browser"
> just to ensure this idea is completely dead.

Locate isn't setup on my system. I searched the whole filesystem to look
for *gnome-www* and it found nothing.

> Sadly I don't even think it's something we can "port" as it ends up
> as a symbolic link to a different script depending on the web browser
> installed.
> Oh, and running the firefox binary isn't going to work as there are at
> least three different invocations of firefox depending on the version
> (i.e. different command lines), and at least three different
> and several different possible install locations, not all of which
> are on the path (this from a conversation with someone who tried to
> get a script just to launch firefox). What a mess.

Surely passing the HTML file pathname as the only command line parameter
will work for all browsers. Won't it?

> How about instead using wxHTMLWindow etc. to launch help? IE be
> our own browser? It's pretty basic, put probably better than nothing
> which is I think what we'll otherwise have. If samples/html/test/test
> works sufficiently well in deploying the help, that might be the way
> to go. WDYT?

Well the current help is VERY complex. Huge amounts of javascript. So I
don't want to try and use anything but a proven web browser that's
widely used. What does the wx call use underneath?