While the terms "widgets" and "controls" are somehow interchangeable "widget" usually ends in more intuitive class names ( QskInputWidget vs QskInputControl ) and avoids clashes with other terminologies ( f.e MVC: model view controller ).
Qt development once created Qt/Quick as replacement for Qt/Widgets and established "controls" to avoid confusion. However the first implementation of the QML controls was simply too heavy and a new implementation had been made, that was sold as "tailored for embedded" for quite some time. In the meantime ( Qt.6 ) the first implementation has been dropped and we somehow are in the situation, where Qt/Quick is seen as "embedded", while Qt/Widget means "desktop".
F.e Flutter also uses the term "Widget".
For QSkinny it is not that important to indicate the underlying graphic stack - it is always Qt/Quick. Having a class QskWidget ( instead of QskControl ) would also be a statement that Qt/Quick can be a good technology for the desktop and that a Qt/Widgets developer can use QSkinny with what (s)he has learned over the years.
This decision has to be made before the very first release !
I don't have any strong opinion either way. Maybe QskWidget is better just do demonstrate that quite some parts are similar to QtWidgets, and users will feel at home...
While the terms "widgets" and "controls" are somehow interchangeable "widget" usually ends in more intuitive class names ( QskInputWidget vs QskInputControl ) and avoids clashes with other terminologies ( f.e MVC: model view controller ).
Qt development once created Qt/Quick as replacement for Qt/Widgets and established "controls" to avoid confusion. However the first implementation of the QML controls was simply too heavy and a new implementation had been made, that was sold as "tailored for embedded" for quite some time. In the meantime ( Qt.6 ) the first implementation has been dropped and we somehow are in the situation, where Qt/Quick is seen as "embedded", while Qt/Widget means "desktop".
F.e Flutter also uses the term "Widget".
For QSkinny it is not that important to indicate the underlying graphic stack - it is always Qt/Quick. Having a class QskWidget ( instead of QskControl ) would also be a statement that Qt/Quick can be a good technology for the desktop and that a Qt/Widgets developer can use QSkinny with what (s)he has learned over the years.
This decision has to be made before the very first release !