On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:00:23PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > 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.
mind you, the issue there was that the doc said "undefined" and it wasn't intepreted that way so when undefined changed to undefined-but-something-else, happy times ensued. The goal here would be to change "undefined" to "defined", so any conversion would have to be done on the server side. But I fully agree with you otherwise. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
