[Development] Qt5 missing features

[Charley Bay]

<snip, QML-style discussion might be too lengthy for email right now, maybe
move to Wiki or blogs, especially until after Qt5 release>

Ok.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Daker Fernandes Pinheiro <
daker.pinheiro at openbossa.org> wrote:

> My team in INdT has been researching about theming/styling of Qt
> Components.
> I’ve synthetised what we’ve been done and some of our aims and ideas:
>
> http://codecereal.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/qml-themingstyling.html
>

Nice.  Impressive serious effort at coming up with a "style-paradigm".  I
like the design -- it removes the "switch-statement" design issues we have
with the existing (QWidget) QStyle, and your design seems quite-a-lot more
elegant.

IMHO, this is the first-and-best "most-serious" public effort I have seen
for something like this (kudos).

In the event your design became "default convention", I would even support
the idea that *all* QML "Item{}" instances *always* have a QUiStyle
property (e.g., it could be the "system-default", or we can/should be able
to *assume* a "native-system-default" "QUiStyle").

I'll need to think about this.  I have half-a-dozen other designs
(mentioned in my previous links), but none may be sufficiently "universal"
like you describe.  For example, several of mine deal with "higher-order"
concepts that directly impact "size" and "animations", based on
higher-order declarative concepts like "importance" and "Z-order", but I'm
uncertain that those are as work-able (as application-universal) as what
you demonstrate.

Very nice job -- I'm really looking forward to your (very soon) Qt5
implementation that relies only upon the Qt5 "SceneGraph".

Thanks for your post!

---charley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120416/eae660d3/attachment.html>