> Those are not obsolete. They still ship with KDE 4, it just uses Oxygen by > default. So I wouldn't call then "non-native", just "less common".
Should we also call Motif and Windows also native KDE styles because they happen to ship with the Qt4 libraries? I think many KDE developers would disagree. > Call me a hopeless case, but the first thing I do on a fresh KDE is changing > the style to one of those two because I find them more visually aiding than > Oxygen (they have better contrast and are less "flashy"). Yes but we are also adding a new and hopefully improved style. It was designed to look visually cleaner and more consistent than Plastique. Please try to think of it as Plastique 2.0 and look at the screen shots. I think my initial mail was a bit poorly worded. If you still don't like the it, that is certainly a valid point though. > Changing color is not the only reason to change the style. There are other > subtle differences - e.g. Cleanlooks displays labels on menu separators and > looks almost completely native on Windows (I use it for exactly those reasons > in one of my applications). Agreed. But changing the whole application style to change a single property is perhaps not the best solution for this use case. I would consider using QProxyStyle and only re-implement menu separators. That way the application could still look native on all platforms. QPlastique style will of course work fine in Qt5, but it might not be shipped on every platform by default. I would be ok with creating a separate qt4styles package that contain the styles we remove so applications can conveniently bundle them when required. Regards, Jens _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
