Re: [PATCH] special handling for `iso-next-group' is needed
>>>> "SJT" == Stephen J Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
SJT> There is another patch pending
SJT> to fix a small subset of the "millions of useful keysyms not
SJT> recognized" problems we still have. If possible, I'd like to do
SJT> something sane with all these keysyms (both the literal input
SJT> ones and the keyboard control ones) at once.
Am I correct in the following:
- you think that according to some standard of specification,
XEmacs should do something special about iso-next-group (and
-first-group, and -last-group, btw); or we will see that it
explicitly lets application to ignore those keysyms;
- this is a part of a large problem (e.g., the problem with unability
to do
M-x describe-key RET Cyrillic_A
fails, because the sequence is
M-x describe-key RET iso-next-group Cyrillic_A
) still holds, and I do not know how to solve it. Do you think that
this could be fixed also (probably on a C level), and even more of
similar issues.
?
Stephen, how do you in your English/Japanese enviroment do the
switches between layouts? Or you do not use xkb, and never see
iso-next-group?
SJT> Do you know of a good on-line (or off-line, it might be in my
SJT> library) reference for these ISO layout management facilities
SJT> (in English)? Is this ISO 9995 stuff? (An alternative
SJT> reference, eg, ECMA, would be appreciated, last I checked my
SJT> library did not have ISO 9995.)
Uhmmm. The closest I could find is
http://ftp.x.org/pub/R6.4/xc/doc/hardcopy/XKB/XKBproto.ps.gz, and it
does not say anything about iso-next-group handling, it just lists
this keysym in a reference table.
ISO 9995 does not seem to be online, and as far as I can tell from its
description (Keyboard Layouts for Text and Office Systems), it does
not govern specifics like X client/server communication :)
So, what's the plan?
Should we read the Xkb spec to find out if there is something said
about the need for an application to respond to group changes keysym?
Should we find ISO 9995 and see if it governs something of interest?
Where is that "pending patch" you're talking about?
--alexm