<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 < [email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
