> Besides having that, what I would really like is that we have a > "component set" (at some point in the future I would like to be able > to start calling them "widgets" again, as this is what they are) that > is the same on all platforms.
I also secretly call them widgets out of habit. However the distinction is probably useful as to not confuse them with the widget toolkit that will still live side by side with Qt Quick. Perhaps we could use the name "Control" to separate interactive elements from just any Qt Quick component. > 1 - platform specific qml widgets (I don't care if technically the > desktop widgets share the same implementation and use the QStyle API > to draw them the way they should be - that's actually a good way to > go); > 2 - The "Qt set" (that ideally would be qt's default offer - that > works on all the platforms, enabling us to write applications that > would behave and look like the same on all platforms). I suspect Metro and the Qt set are two rather different things. Metro seems to belong more in category with IOS and Android components than desktop but I have yet to try a Metro enabled application… The QtDesktop components will most likely map to the traditional windows apps. However even within the Qt Desktop components, I think we will have to add a set of platform specific widgets such as SearchEdit on the mac etc. > Ah, it's worth mentioning that these widgets should be designed and > draw by real designers and not by us (developers). Even if we think > that we have designer skills, we don't ;) I disagree. These widgets should be rendered natively by their respective operating systems as far as it is possible. :) Cheers, Jens Bache-Wiig _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
