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

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 gmail com> wrote:
> 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?

What do you mean by "separate implementation"?

> For IBus integration in general, I have several concerns.
> 1. How can currently not-so-good IBus engines being improved?

This question does not make sense because engines are not maintained
by IMF, their status cannot be improved by IMF either.

> 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.

Please give the link.

> 3. Can advocates of other IMFs accept IBus integrated GNOME?

No, at least not for now.

Aron Xu

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]