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