Re: Some points about IM integration

[Weng Xuetian <wengxt gmail com>]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Tommy He <tommy he linux com> wrote:
> I'm just start catching the whole story and find where the discussion is now.
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Weng Xuetian <wengxt gmail com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Germán Póo-Caamaño <gpoo gnome org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it possible you can enumerate all those special needs and why are
>>> compulsory?
>>>
>>> Just stating the options are important does not help to understand why,
>>> neither gives the opportunity to think or determine which approach would
>>> fit better.
>>>
>> Well, since we already agreed on option complex but necessary is
>> required, we need not to continue on this question.
>>
>> But if you want I could explain it. (Note that both fcitx and ibus
>> have such option, so it's not about functionality but about UI.)
>>
>> Pinyin is an input method based on Pronunciation of Chinese character.
>> But Chinese people have quite different accent in different place, so
>> they might not be able to distinguish some pronunciation, for example
>> "si" or "shi". So they are option to let input method think si and shi
>> is the same string to lookup. Number of similar options is nearly 20,
>> I think we could think this as "Complex". For the number of people who
>> need it, it is much lesser than people who don't need it. But we
>> cannot remove them since it's necessary for those people.
>
> Now we're back to a specific input method, again.
> From my perspective, these options should be considered as input
> method engine options.
>
> I assume that proposed IM configuration module in gnome-control-center
> will ONLY presents the options for input method *framework*. Correct
> me if I'm wrong.
> As long as it have a button to launch the input method engine
> preference window AND doesn't shut the door from engine developer to
> customize, I don't see it as an issue.

You totally get my meaning wrong, I mean shutdown down the door for
other IMF, and the code is mostly in gnome-settings-daemon since it
looks like gnome want to force gtk-im-module settings.

>
> If so, I'm curious on how many tweaks in a certain input method
> *framework* are available to end users in runtime. How many are there
> in iBus and FCITX respectively?

Fcitx have more, but that's for "Global" configuration, which ibus
usually provide them for each input method engine.

The most difference of philosophy of ibus and fcitx is, for ibus, the
only type of plugin is just engine, and standalone with each other.
For fcitx, plugin is not only engine and they should cooperate to
provides better input feeling.

>
> Otherwise, I'm afraid that we may never consolidate a unified UX for
> IM configuration module since the input method engine options vary
> vastly.
>

> ______________________________________________
>> desktop-devel-list mailing list
>> desktop-devel-list gnome org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
>
>
> --
> Take a Deep Breath out of Windows