On Thursday 14 August 2003 11:02, Danilo Segan wrote:
> "fr" file governs keymaps for the French language, and it's sane (I
> already mentioned that there are other criteria, like population -- the
> criterium of "language origin" is just a sample one, for the sake of
> discussion) to have a "default" behaviour when loading a keymap for
> French *language* -- whether the default keymap would be Canadian or
> French is not directly relevant in this discussion -- it depends on the
> motives one has when defining a default.
Actually, the current fr file describes the keymaps for the keyboard produced
for France. But the file fr-latin9 describes a more general keymap for the
French language.
> You seem to be misunderstanding my idea.
>
> Idea is to *allow* choosing a keymap on either language (eg. "fr(CA)")
> or country (eg. "CA(fr)"). I never mentioned that any specific country
> would have "supremacy" over the keymap based on the language.
I do understand your idea. But I think that it adds too much complexity for
very little gain. And, by describing a keymap by language would require that
there be *some* default for national differences.
> Why do I have a strange feeling that you're generalizing based on the
> (so many times) mentioned 5 or 6 languages? There are thousands of
> languages in the world, and hundreds of countries.
Actually, what I'm generalizing on are the current keymaps in XFree86. Because
a lot of countries to map to a single language and the country and language
have the same 2-letter code for ISO 3166 and 639, and because CVS doesn't
handle file renames very well plus Xkb uses the names of the files for
configuration, I'd prefer to change the description in the file with no
backward-compatabilty issues rather than move these files to a new name, lose
the history in CVS, and have to provide files with the new and old names.
There may be thousands of languages and hundreds of countries, but there are
less than 125 keymaps in XFree86.
> > Another problem with the US(en) model is that the current us file has
> > lots of settings for 105-key keyboards and such things, that would be
> > specified by US(105-key) or something, which has no language code.
>
> Didn't we already agree that anything which doesn't represent a ISO
> code is to be considered "custom"?
No. I was only talking about the names of the files. I don't think it's
necessary or wise to require that of the xkb_symbols names as well.
> Though, you'll certainly agree that this kind of thing ("105-key")
> doesn't belong in the "US" keymap, but more like "hardware" or
> something along those lines.
Perhaps, but it's a big step from the mostly-working setup X has now.
Frank
_______________________________________________
I18n mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n
