On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Markus Kuhn wrote: : There is nothing wrong in principle with adding new keysyms, however the : integer number associated with new keysyms for which there is an : equivalent Unicode U-00xxxxxx character MUST be 0x01xxxxxx, because : we do not want to let the keysym table grow needlessly (to more than : 60000 entries). However, since keysyms are never visible to anyone but : people who write keyboard layout tables, it is a senseless exercise : to add new ones, so we stopped it entirely and now consider keysyms : merely to be a frozen pre-Unicode era artifact. Keysyms will only be added : for keyboard keys, for which it is unlikely that there will ever be a : good equivalent in Unicode.
The Syriac keyboard is dependent on several Arabic and Latin characters -- for example, Arabic-Indic numbering, plus, minus, Arabic shadda to name a few. Would be it safe to assume that those charactes should be assigned a unicode codepoint instead of directly going to keysymdef.h? If Arabic_comma is already defined as a keysym, should I ignore it and go with its equivalent in Unicode? Another question I have is, what is the difference between Group1 and Group2 keyboard layouts as defined in xkbcomp/symbols/pc/ and xkbcomp/symbols/? Should I create a layout for both Group1 and Group2? Thank you for answering my questions and appeasing my curiosity. -- Emil Soleyman-Zomalan _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
