Re: Some points about IM integration

[Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds gmail com>]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Jasper St. Pierre
<jstpierre mecheye net> wrote:
> Is there any reason that picking one input method framework is bad, if
> we do it right? If the experience sucks and users have to switch to
> another input method framework, yes, we've done it wrong, as Owen says
> in the original email. But if it works pretty much out of the box for
> all cases, what's wrong with tight integration?

There is resistance to changes after some support is in. Someone
already mentioned the power off button case, which took several cycles
to finally get fixed. I _think_ designers/developers moved their focus
to other stuff because it sort of works already.

So if there are strong opposing opinions from the beginning. I'd
rather see the discussion settled down than just go with one and see
what (likely never) happens next.

> We already have several hard requirements, out of practicality. GNOME
> chose GTK+ as our main toolkit. GNOME chose PulseAudio as our main
> sound server. We do this because we don't have the resources to
> support Qt or EFL or Motif or Xaw. Nor do we have the resources to
> support ESD or OSS.
>
> I doubt we have the resources to support both IBus and FCITX, and
> provide a good experience for both. Individual distributions may, but
> that's their call, not GNOME's.
>
> As for the "prove it with code" argument, it's not a data point until
> it happens. When it happens, I may switch my opinion.

-- 
Duy