Re: IM Integration: Let's demonstrate our languages in the Wiki

[Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 gmail com>]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Aron Xu <aronxu gnome org> wrote:
> We are against the integration of IMF in GNOME and the reasons and
> concerns are well explained before, it's not only a race condition but
> also technically too broken. It's easy to understand: if GNOME can
> integrate IMF and XKB using a virtual layer of input-sources, why
> those IMF developers spend so many time to implement XKB support
> (ibus-xkb, fcitx-keyboard)? No, it's surely not because all of them
> are stupid.

I find you last two sentences confusing.
Separate implementation can due to many reasons.
Can you point out a good reason for separate implementation?

For IBus integration in general, I have several concerns.
1. How can currently not-so-good IBus engines being improved?
2. IBus 1.5 is going to handle input engines/keyboard layouts in a way
very similar to Mac OS X.
The Mac OS X way is simple but restricted, so some objections already
appear IBus's issue tracker.
3. Can advocates of other IMFs accept IBus integrated GNOME?