On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:26:01AM +0000, Markus Kuhn wrote: > > while trying to develop a keymap which includes mathematical symbols, I am > > wondering about the exact status of the "UCS keysyms" 0x01000000 and > > above... Are these already standardized? Do any X servers except XF86 > > currently use them? > > The X.Org Foundation has given me access to their CVS just last week to > ammend the X11 protocol specification and to make this convention > official. I was on a phone conference with them last Monday and they all > agreed that adding the 0x01000000 convention to the standard would be > most sensible. > > > And... how exactly should they be interpreted by clients? Should there be > > any difference between for example "eacute" and "U00E9"? > > You will have to continue to use the existing keysyms if a character has > one. The +0x01000000 Unicode mapping is exclusively meant for adding any > new keysyms for which there isn't already an existing code. This is to > preserve backwards compatibility. > > [...] > > None of the values in the range 0x01000000 to 0x01000100 will > technically be assigned keysyms, as all ISO 8859-1 codes have already > other code positions assigned. What your client decides to do if you
Thank you for the useful info... > We can define it now as strictly as we want and need, because the text > passage that defines that officially will be written over the next few > weeks. IMHO your explanations make a reasonable and sufficiently clear definition. > > I also noticed that the Compose-Files of 4.3.0 in UTF-8 locales use the > > Uxxxx keysyms even for characters that have old keysyms (all the > > accented latin-{12...} chars). > > I would argue that any Uxxxx notation used in compose files will have to > go through a special unicode2keysym conversion function that uses a > mapping table. You cannot simply add 0x01000000 to *any* Unicode > character to get its keysym. Do you mean the server should do this conversion while reading compose files? I would rather expect the compose files to only include valid keysyms in the above sense... > If XFree86 doesn't do that conversion > correctly at the moment, please file this into the xfree86 bugzilla such > that it will not get lost. If filed this as http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1278 and assigned it to XKB which is probably wrong... ??? Thanks so far Alex _______________________________________________ I18n mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/i18n