On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Ma Xiaojun <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
What do you mean by "separate implementation"? > For IBus integration in general, I have several concerns. > 1. How can currently not-so-good IBus engines being improved? This question does not make sense because engines are not maintained by IMF, their status cannot be improved by IMF either. > 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. Please give the link. > 3. Can advocates of other IMFs accept IBus integrated GNOME? No, at least not for now. -- Regards, Aron Xu _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
