On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Aron Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you mean by "separate implementation"? "those IMF developers spend so many time to implement XKB support (ibus-xkb, fcitx-keyboard)?"
> This question does not make sense because engines are not maintained > by IMF, their status cannot be improved by IMF either. AFAIK, @csslayer commits most new (after Yuking's origin fcitx paused development) code in fcitx project. Definitely, he should be maintaining engines and IMF at the same time. For IBus, I think its github page shows who maintains which component clearly. https://github.com/ibus >> 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. http://code.google.com/p/ibus/issues/detail?id=747 https://groups.google.com/group/ibus-user/browse_thread/thread/4df86deaeaf0349 >> 3. Can advocates of other IMFs accept IBus integrated GNOME? > No, at least not for now. Expected. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
