Hi, On 15 November 2016 at 09:42, Jonas Ådahl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:22:41AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: >> But this I'd prefer to drop. We need to describe the button codes, but >> the key codes are _already_ perfectly described in the keymap. Leaving >> this undefined opens the door to making life much easier for, e.g., >> RDP-based compositors. > > Maybe it'd make it easier for RDP based compositors, but it'd make it > harder for clients who don't care about keymaps and just wants keycodes > (think WASD using games). Such clients doesn't care if it's actually > <AOE, or if QWERTY or QWERTZ, and by not defining this in any way would > make such clients rely on undefined behaviour.
Those clients can trivially introspect the keymap, then ... ? We can't always guarantee that we even _have_ a map to KEY_*, and I really don't want to encourage the line of thinking that keycodes are somehow special and usable in and of themselves. GNOME did that a long time ago with AT keycodes, and it took literal years to unpick when we tried to move to evdev. Keymaps exist for a reason, and I don't want to encourage people to route around them. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
