On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Aron Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > We are against the integration of IMF in GNOME and the reasons and > concerns are well explained before, it's not only a race condition but > also technically too broken. It's easy to understand: if GNOME can > integrate IMF and XKB using a virtual layer of input-sources, why > those IMF developers spend so many time to implement XKB support > (ibus-xkb, fcitx-keyboard)? No, it's surely not because all of them > are stupid.
I find you last two sentences confusing. Separate implementation can due to many reasons. Can you point out a good reason for separate implementation? For IBus integration in general, I have several concerns. 1. How can currently not-so-good IBus engines being improved? 2. IBus 1.5 is going to handle input engines/keyboard layouts in a way very similar to Mac OS X. The Mac OS X way is simple but restricted, so some objections already appear IBus's issue tracker. 3. Can advocates of other IMFs accept IBus integrated GNOME? _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
