Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: pete@iris49.UUCP (Pete Ware)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: PC/AT Keyboard X Keysym Proposal - R.F.C.
Message-ID: <9101101641.AA06324@iris49.biosym.com>
Date: 10 Jan 91 16:41:52 GMT
References: <9510@scolex.sco.COM>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28

>    "How do I tell the difference between the regular arrow key and the
>    keypad arrow key?"
>
> The philosophy is that every Keytop (engraving) on the keyboard should
> have a unique X Keysym associated with it.  This is why there is a 
> XK_Shift_L as well as a XK_Shift_R.

> I think if you go back and look at Appendix E of the Red (Purple?) book
> you'll see why I decided to try to add some new Keysyms.  I strongly
> believe that every key on the keyboard should have a unique identifier.
> If we only use the Num_Lock key, then it becomes almost impossible to
> differentiate between the keys unless you look at the Keycodes.   Then
> you have an even more system specific case.  In the long run, new
> Keysyms will provide a more consistent solution.

Doesn't Appendix E (on pg 643 in the 2nd edition) in the description
of the common approach explicitely suggest  "folding likely aliases
into the same keysym?"  The "common approach" philosiphy is not to
have a unique Keysym associated with every engraving on a keyboard.

Perhaps the port to X can be viewed as an opportunity to clean up old
hacks?  I guess I'm not being very sympathetic towards being backward
compatible.

--pete
Pete Ware / Biosym / San Diego CA / (619) 546-5532
uucp:	  scripps.edu!bioc1!pete
Internet: bioc1!pete@scripps.edu