Dan Nicholson <[email protected]> writes: > Not that I actually have the time to work on this, but I'd been > thinking about xkbcommon lately. Do you think it's possible to build a > compatibility layer around the current code?
I don't know, but I'd be surprised if xkbcommon provided enough low-level information to support the existing XKB protocol. I hope Daniel can answer this question... > What do you think? It seems silly not to be making use of xkbcommon in > X. That was the plan, but then the plan also included replacing XKB with XKB2, which was supposed to have vastly simplified XKB... -- [email protected]
pgpahKGzFWIEf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
