[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More about XKB

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: More about XKB
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:42:47 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:52:53PM +0100, M. Gerards wrote:
> > Why discuss this with the X people?  The need to be able to reuse the Hurd
> > extensions to keymaps in X is absolutely zero.  The Hurd driver should
> > (internally) preload the default Hurd extensions (like Alt+F1 sitch to VC1),
> > and allow users to specify their own mappings, which can be in separate
> > files from the X configuration.  This way, the common things can be shared
> > while the Hurd extensions are kept outside of X.
> It would be nice to be able to share configuration files, if we will have our
> own parser we can stop this will be solved automaticly. Let's talk about this

"we can stop this will be solved automaticly"? something is wrong in that

> later because it isn't important ATM :).

Using the configuration files from X without any changes to them is the whole
point of the exercise.
> Please have a look at this file:
> (/usr)/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/iso8859-15/Compose

Yup, that's what I was expecting.  Then you only need a simple table that
maps X keycodes (symbols, whatever they are called in the X world) to
Unicode characters (or character sequences, but I would start off with
> One problem is that symbol names are used here.... I think. I definately 
> should
> think more about deadkeys.

Where is the technical difference between a compose key and a dead key?  I
can't see any.

`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU      http://www.gnu.org    marcus@gnu.org
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]