On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:45:35PM +1030, David Kettler wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, John. Sounds good. > > > The last piece of the puzzle will be > >providing a UI by which the user can interactively toggle optional > >keymaps, though I'm not sure exactly what form that UI will take at the > >moment. > > It's be nice if it were possible to have both sets of keys > available without collision, to avoid the need to toggle. That > works in emacs because there are strong conventions to avoid > modes stomping on general keys. Whereas keys assigned by sites > are very likely to collide with conkeror key assignments. And > the standard conkeror keystrokes are too convenient to change for > this purpose. > > Just musing, David
In emacs, unmodified alphanumerics are bound to self-insert, which is more or less equivalent to Conkeror's concept of a fallthrough. Conkeror's use of unmodified alphanumeric bindings is not only very un-emacsy, but also very much in conflict with the assumptions of most web designers, because there seems to be an implicit convention that those keys should be available for web pages to use. That said, having those bindings is so convenient, and so fundamental to Conkeror's UI, that it's not really an option to give them up. Thus, we must muddle along and deal with the conflicts as best we can. Our concept of modality is really a lot more like vi's UI than emacs's. -- John Foerch _______________________________________________ Conkeror mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/conkeror
