Hi everyone,
GNOME uses a database that maps keyboard layouts to countries and
languages. This is used to try and guess which layouts will be
interesting to users depending on their country and language.
Unfortunately, this database has a lot of gaps. To try and fix this,
we are trying to collect
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Allan Day wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> GNOME uses a database that maps keyboard layouts to countries and
> languages. This is used to try and guess which layouts will be
> interesting to users depending on their country and language.
>
> Unfortunately, this database ha
Chris Leonard wrote:
> OLPC (and Sugar Labs) get into the keyboard creation business with
> some regularity. I see a few "olpc" keyboards on your list, but for a
> more complete listing see:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Category:Keyboard_layouts
Thanks for the list, Chris. We certainly want to
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:04:46AM +, Allan Day wrote:
> Chris Leonard wrote:
> > OLPC (and Sugar Labs) get into the keyboard creation business with
> > some regularity. I see a few "olpc" keyboards on your list, but for a
> > more complete listing see:
> >
> > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Categ
Hello Chris,
On 4 January 2013 16:01, Chris Leonard wrote:
> OLPC (and Sugar Labs) get into the keyboard creation business with
> some regularity. I see a few "olpc" keyboards on your list, but for a
> more complete listing see:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Category:Keyboard_layouts
>
> There m
On 9 January 2013 03:18, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
> I don't know much about OLPC at a technical level so I don't know
> which layouts database it uses. But, if it uses a modern X server it's
> also probably using xkeyboard-config and that would be why some of the
> layouts there are labeled as
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos
wrote:
>> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Category:Keyboard_layouts
>>
>> There may be some layouts for languages you don't have already (albeit
>> for OLPC keyboard configs).
>>
>> You are only looking for XKB layouts?
>
> We are not particularly