Owen Taylor wrote: > On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 14:32, Ivan Pascal wrote: ... > > I risk to seem impolite but did you try this option before making such > > assertion? If you tried you would notice that it is not true. > > I had the made the assumption that caps:shift did the classic X thing > and changed the keysym to be Shift_Lock rather than Caps_Lock.
I agree, it is a bit confusing. The thing is that Turkish users described the problem as "CapsLock and Shift lead to different results". And I thought that "Caps acts like Shift" is a right description for the new mode. When I cut it to just "caps:shift" I meant that only. > With the actual mode of implementation (not using the Lock modifier), > yes, you don't have the problem of it affecting non-alphabetic keys. I would have the problem with "it affecting non-alphabetic keys" if I didn't use the Lock modifier. There is not such problem because "the actual mode of implementation" does use the Lock modifier. I tried to explain it in my replies to Pablo. > However, you do have the problem that applications can't tell that > the level change was produced by the caps-lock key. Which sometimes > is useful information. > > For instance, the obvious fix for: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115384 > > which is to strip out the Lock modifier before checking for accelerator > matches, won't work. I am sorry for the repeating. Did you try it before writing this? -- Ivan U. Pascal | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrator of | Tomsk State University University Network | Tomsk, Russia _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
