GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 679074
schemas: Add a 'xkb-options' key to org.gnome.desktop.input-sources
Last modified: 2012-08-16 14:25:03 UTC
See patch.
Created attachment 217546 [details] [review] schemas: Add a 'xkb-options' key to org.gnome.desktop.input-sources
Review of attachment 217546 [details] [review]: Does it make sense to store options independent of layout+variant ?
(In reply to comment #2) > Does it make sense to store options independent of layout+variant ? I think it does but I'm not 100% sure. If we had an independent set of options for each input source would the user have to configure, say the compose key, for each one of them? Or we could have 2 levels of options, some global and some tied to an input source? Looking at the available options, the vast majority seems to only make sense globally. It's only a handful of them that could make sense tied to an input source like the 3 Japanese ones. I wonder how useful they are though.
Those are xkb-options, they're options just for xkb layouts, so it looks fine to me to only have one. libgnomekbd only had global xkb options as well.
Review of attachment 217546 [details] [review]: Looks fine to me. Are you sure "as" is the best container to apply those to XKB?
(In reply to comment #4) > Those are xkb-options, they're options just for xkb layouts, so it looks fine > to me to only have one. > libgnomekbd only had global xkb options as well. Ah, OK then
(In reply to comment #5) > Review of attachment 217546 [details] [review]: > > Looks fine to me. Are you sure "as" is the best container to apply those to > XKB? Also, if we do go with "as", can you use <choices> to enumerate the available option values?
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Review of attachment 217546 [details] [review] [details]: > > > > Looks fine to me. Are you sure "as" is the best container to apply those to > > XKB? > > Also, if we do go with "as", can you use <choices> to enumerate the available > option values? There's a _lot_ of them. There's at least 200 listed in /usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base.
(In reply to comment #5) > Looks fine to me. Are you sure "as" is the best container to apply those to > XKB? The API finally requires the options to be sent to the X server as a string like "option1,option2,option3" so yes, I think "as" is fine for that.
(In reply to comment #8) > > Also, if we do go with "as", can you use <choices> to enumerate the available > > option values? > > There's a _lot_ of them. There's at least 200 listed in > /usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base. Having the choices listed in the schema is a huge help when using dconf-editor or gsettings tool. Even, and *especially*, if there are "lots" of them :-)
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > Also, if we do go with "as", can you use <choices> to enumerate the available > > > option values? > > > > There's a _lot_ of them. There's at least 200 listed in > > /usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base. > > Having the choices listed in the schema is a huge help when using dconf-editor > or gsettings tool. Even, and *especially*, if there are "lots" of them :-) Maybe we could come up with something auto-generated. I wouldn't block this bug on it though.
Filed bug 682008 about the <choices> stuff.