In bug#69941 I reported a faulty fontification of radio-button widgets
and noted in passing that the labels associated with the radio buttons
also have unexpected faces, namely, the widget-inactive face regardless
of whether the associated radio buttons are inactive or active (except
for the label of a radio button that has been pressed, which has the
default face).  While the faulty fontification discussed in bug#69941
appears to be a real bug, the widget-inactive face assigned to
radio-button labels is apparently by design -- it was present in the
initial commit of the widget library.  But this seems to me to have been
a UX mistake, since it effectively ignores the semantics implied by the
name widget-inactive.  I think a less surprising UI would be for the
labels to be fontified according to the widget's activation state:
default face when the widget is active and widget-inactive face when
it's inactive.  The attached patches provide two possible
implementations of this UI.

The first patch makes the change unconditionally, treating the current
fontification as a UI/UX bug.  But it may be argued that this aspect of
the widget UI should not be unconditionally changed, since it was
apparently a deliberate design choice and there have been (AFAIK) no
complaints about the semantic discrepancy till now.  The lack of
complaint could be because the widget-inactive face inherits the shadow
face, so it is not sharply different from the default face.  But if one
uses a very different face (as I did for illustrative purposes in
bug#69941), the inconsistency is very obvious and (IMO) jarring.
Nevertheless, to allow keeping the current fontification, the second
patch conditionalizes the change from the current fontification by means
of a user option (with the default being the current fontification).

Is either of these changes acceptable?