[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More about XKB

From: M. Gerards
Subject: Re: More about XKB
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:26:36 +0100
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1

> 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
> sentence.

Oops. This problem will be solved automaticly when we read human readable 
configuration files. Still it will remain compatible. AFAIK configuration 
options can be overruled, this is a nice way to handle this IMHO.
> > 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
> characters).

Yes. I just wonder if a table already exists to map symbol names to numeric 
values. I think a C header (.h) file is used for this and that the Compose file 
is processed by the C pre-processor. I'm  going to search the code reponsible 
for deadkeys this evening :).

> > 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.

AFAIK it is the same.


Marco Gerards

reply via email to

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