On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tobias Reif wrote:
<keycombo action="simul"> <keycap function="control"/> <keycap function="alt"/> <keycap function="backspace"/> </keycombo>
<keycombo action="simul"> <keycap function="alt"/> <keycap function="shift"/> <keycap>I</keycap> </keycombo>
i'm uncomfortable with this way of extending keycaps to handle the additional keys.
the problem is that something like the "escape" key can be used in two different ways:
1) it can be a "modifier", if you want to call it that, in that it can be pressed just before pressing another key, or
<keycombo action="simul">
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<keycap function="escape"/>
<keycap function="a"/>
</keycombo>2) it can be a separate key press all on its own, such as to press "escape" to, say, exit a program
<keycap function="escape"/>
in either case, there should be a way to say, "i want to press
the Escape key here", which logically suggests that there should
be a separate keycap-type entry for "Escape".
see above
"Escape", or "Alt", or others keys like that, i don't think belong simply as attributes of a keycap. really, they're keys
in their own right and should be treated as such.
<keycap function="escape"/>
In english "The keycap with function escape." or "The keycap providing the functinality named escape."
i *can* accept the above extension, but it just doesn't sit totally well with me, although i'm still pondering what i would do differently.
Do some more pondering :) , but I don't see your point as argument against the suggested syntax/naming.
Other suggestions (which would also be OK IMHO) looked like
<input action="escape"/> or <input type="escape"/> or <action type="escape"/> or <action name="escape"/>
Also check the RFE page (RFE 697374) http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=697374&group_id=21935&atid=384107
Tobi
-- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
