Re: 2 little politically charged characters

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 11:12, Noah Levitt wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 13:52:37 +0100, Sergey V. Oudaltsov wrote:
> > 
> > the visible layout representation). The only problem is that if my colleague
> > (using British layout here in Ireland) at some point comes to my desktop (I use
> > American layout for Latin 1) - he'd be surprised to find out that punctuation
> > characters are placed differently (I don't even mention some strange guy who
> > would expect to see Dvorak layout). But anyway - _for_me_ this is OK. So if
> > noone here has something to say against this solution - I will go with it.
> 
> My gut tells me that each layout should be uniquely
> identified. But nobody else seems to think that, so maybe
> I'm wrong this time. :)

I think each layout among the current set of layouts should be uniquely
identified. I don't see any reason to allow you to walk up to someone's
screen, look at the panel and know which key does what.

The normal assumption is that your keyboard map matches your physical
keyboard. If that's not the case, then anybody walking up to your
keyboard is going to be in trouble anyways.

A simple rule might be:

 - When there are no duplicates in the current set of layouts, use
   language codes.
 - For any layouts where there is duplication in the current set, use
   layout names and let the applet get big if necessary.

(I'm strongly in favor of taking the union of all strings as the 
size; I think having the panel applet grow and shrink is a pretty
bad thing.)

Regards,
						Owen