On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:22:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 11:08:49PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > True, I will try to improve wording here.
>
> Are you happy with the current FAQ entry? If I'm saying anything
> misleading in it, please let me know. I don't want to ship a FAQ in sarge
> with bad information in it.
>
> > No, in my bogus terminology, position means the group number.
>
> Okay. I *think* I understand. Would the follwing symbol definition
> reflect an accurate notion of what a group is (assuming my bogus keysyms
> actually existed)?
>
> xkb_symbols "foo" {
>
> name[Group1] = "FirstGroup"
> name[Group2] = "SecondGroup"
> name[Group3] = "ThirdGroup"
> name[Group4] = "FourthGroup"
>
> key <AE01> = { [ UnshiftedGroup1, ShiftedGroup1 ],
> [ UnshiftedGroup2, ShiftedGroup2 ],
> [ UnshiftedGroup3, ShiftedGroup3 ],
> [ UnshiftedGroup4, ShiftedGroup4 ] }
> }
No, this can't be right, as the new symbols/pc/ca file shows.
If there are only two keysyms to a group, then the Canadian default layout
("fr") couldn't be combined with any group 2 layout.
key <AD11> { [dead_circumflex, dead_circumflex, bracketleft ] };
And ca(multi) would not be combinable with ca(multi-gr2).
key <AE12> { [ equal, plus, notsign ] };
Sigh. Just when I think I've almost grasped it, something yanks it away.
Or maybe I simply have stumpled upon the difference between "levels" and
"groups"?
--
G. Branden Robinson | It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to
branden@debian.org | license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature