[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.
ok
> > 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.
Thanks,
Marco Gerards