[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#324647: /etc/X11/xkb/symbols/pl: strange characters mapping with Polish keymap (pl)



On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 07:41:17PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Polish language doesn't use alt+w, alt+q and alt+f shortcuts cause we don't
> > have language specific characters there, so I think these combinations
> > shoulnd't output anything, but they do:
> > 
> > alt+w - ł
> > alt+q - @
> > alt+f - đ
> > alt+j - j
> > 
> > alt+w outputs the same character as alt+l.
> > 
> > I asked some friends using Gentoo and the same problem exists there, so
> > it's not Debian specific.
> > 
> > Probably Polish keymap is wrong, but looking at /etc/X11/xkb/symbols/pl
> > I can't see anything related to these keys.
> 
> This is because you are looking at the wrong file, see
> /etc/X11/xkb/symbols/pc/pl instead.  This file loads
> /etc/X11/xkb/symbols/pc/latin which contains these
> definitions.  But I do not see why displaying these
> symbols is a problem for you.

Well it's not a big problem. That's why I used minor severity.

But I see no reason for such behaviour. It is annoying, cause we've got
plenty of common used words that has -ów suffix. To get this suffix we have 
to push alt+o, then release alt and push w. Since alt+w gives as the same
as alt+l it often happens that I see wrongly written words with -ół.

And I don't understand what's the problem with removing it from Polish
layout? And why these keys are active at all?
Is it because of compatibility with other latin languages?

So people from Hungary have working alt+l if they don't use it for example?

Thanks for your quick response.

regards
fEnIo


-- 
  ,''`.  Bartosz Fenski | mailto:fenio@debian.org | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo
 : :' :       32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Poland
 `. `'           phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user
   `-          http://skawina.eu.org | jid:fenio@jabber.org | rlu:172001

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: