> There is nothing wrong with variants as such. Not even with maybe
> funny looking but perfectly logical XkbVariant list you introduced
> below.
> But (as you can see on your own example below) are mostly about some
> minor changes (winkeys, missing usefull keys or so) but it's not
> about layout changes. Maybe there is no such other braindead map
> as cz/cz_qwerty but it doesn't seem obvious to me. For example:
>
> cz(winkeys) looks okay, but cz_qwerty(winkeys) is also meaningful.
Yes I see.
As for me I prefer variants. Since we have a two-level model Layout/Variant
(or even three-level with XkbModel) it would be better to tie these levels
to other terms such as a Language (or country) and a variants inside the
language layout. (Just my opinion, of course).
Note that there are also XkbOptions which can be used for 'minor changes'
common for all layouts.
> How would this look if qwerty was a variant of cz?
Obviously, like cz(qwerty_winkeys).
Have you seen a complete list of subsections in the Hungarian keyboard map? :)
BTW it is one of reasons why I'd suggest to pay attention to the new
incarnation for a 'description file'.
In my opinion although the layout names are pretty clear the variant
names shouldn't be used for a manual XKb configuration. Of course you
can give them quite understandable names but comprehensive descriptions
are better.
--
Ivan U. Pascal | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrator of | Tomsk State University
University Network | Tomsk, Russia
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
