i didn't mean to make a big issue out of this; i'm satisfied with the current proposal,
cool :)
currently, a key cap is written as <keycap>x</keycap>. this seems to suggest that a keycap is, by default, of type "literal", if i can call it that.
Yep, and this stays true for "non-function"/char keys.
now the above is pretty darn wordy, but one can condense it by, perhaps, redefining keycap to not need any content at all:
<keycap literal="x"/> <keycap function="escape"/>
In
<keycap>x</keycap>
the textual content is literal, which is implied (as you wrote above), and understood.
So
<keycap>x</keycap>
<keycap function="escape"/>
makes sense IMHO.
i also notice that the definition of a keycap, according to 2.0.8, is "the *text* printed on a key on the keyboard" (my emphasis).
yep (notice that currently there is a problem, since on my control key, there is written "Strg", while on other's there's "Ctrl")
notice that this isn't strictly true anymore,
Exactly, but it stays true for "non-function"/char keys.
For stuff like
<keycap>x</keycap>
the def stays true.
For the proposed extension, the spec would need to be extended to explain the notation for those keycaps which are function keys, eg <keycap function="escape"/> for escape etc.
> since what might be > displayed could be something other than text.
Exactly! That's one of the main reasons for requesting that the markup for function keys be specified/standardized, no matter which notation/naming/syntax is used. Then you can translate them into pics, ASCII rendering, foreign laguages, etc.
anyway, i realize i'm being thoroughly anal retentive, so i'll just shut up now, and whole-heartedly support whatever gets added.
Discussing this stuff makes sense. Thanks for your input.
Tobi
-- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
