Re: 3.6 Feature: IBus/XKB integration

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 12:27 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 16:00 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > Isn't that a whole lot more confusing? Plus, do we have time in the 3.6
> > > cycle to do a good job at inventing a replacement for non-legacy apps?
> > > Is that the best use of our resources?
> > 
> > That's an example. And from what I understood, given the "need to
> > mention the iBus chosen method through envvars" system, I think we have
> > part of the answer here. We're already effectively working on the
> > non-legacy replacement.
> 
>  If I'm entering *text* into an text field, I need an input method
> 
>  If I'm pressing a hotkey, an accelerator, a mnemonic, etc, then input
>   methods don't matter, and the toolkit needs to know something about
>   the keyboard layout.
<snip interesting technical details>

I'll rephrase what I was saying, because I don't think it's really come
through. I don't care about implementation details.

I care that there's a hard-coded limit that shouldn't be there, and that
we're working on removing that barrier (hopefully).

Calling anything that wouldn't work with whatever work-arounds we might
come up with is what I call legacy.

I'm fine with the idea that some applications that use other toolkits,
or frameworks might not work as well, because the user has been warned.
And that's a better way to do things than restrict the user with no good
way of informing them about limits.