"Martin Dybdal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I actually had the same idea when I created the reddit page mode, that > the keys should standardized in some way. In the reddit-mode (and in > gmail and google labs experimental keyboard search page) the keys are: > j - next element on page (or go to next page if at the end) > k - previous element on page (or go to the bottom of the previous page > if at the end) > o - open the selected element > / - go to the search field (not in reddit mode yet, but in the two others) > (and then some others more specific keys)
This presents an interesting problem-- We have always preferred to favor emacs conventions when establishing conventions for conkeror. `j', `k', and `/' are on the vi side of things. Though I myself prefer vi-style bindings, I have always respected that people have a reasonable expectation of conkeror to be emacs-like by default. I feel that consistency would be worth effort here. The problem is that by emacs conventions, `f', `b', `n', `p' correspond to the movement commands. Unmodified, we have already bound three of those keys to other commands (that in fact do not especially follow any emacs convention: follow, bookmark, and links-link-class). The next reasonable set would be those keys modified by Meta. However M-n and M-p are already bound to buffer-next and buffer-previous--again, bindings that do not follow any emacs convention. So let me pose the following question: have we been hasty in assigning top level bindings, and do some of them need to be re-thought in order to stick to our emacsy roots? The vi-style bindings could be in the yet-to-be-written vi-keys mode, where I and all the other vi fans could easily enable them. -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
