GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 683697
input: add more IBus engines to whitelist
Last modified: 2012-09-16 21:30:07 UTC
1. add "wubi" and "erbi" (from ibus-table) for Simplified Chinese A local user said that wubi has at least 20% of language users. erbi appears later than wubi but getting popular since it is easier to learn. 2. remove "m17n:fa:isiri" since it seems to be a duplicate of XKB (ir) 3. add engines for some languages which do not have XKB keymap https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682313#c34 4. add non-trivial engines based on transliteration rather than keysym to character mapping
Created attachment 223877 [details] [review] input: add more IBus engines to whitelist
Review of attachment 223877 [details] [review]: Could you please split the patch in 4, as you're fixing 4 bugs, and mentioning the reasoning for each one of them (the same thing you put in the bug)?
Created attachment 223969 [details] [review] input: fixup the IBus engine whitelist A local user confirmed that the Vietnamese whitelist covers 90% of the language users, thus it is now marked as "confirmed". Also, m17n:fa:isiri is removed since it has XKB equivalent.
Created attachment 223970 [details] [review] input: add wubi and erbi to IBus engine whitelist wubi and erbi (both from ibus-table) are popular stroke based input methods for inputing Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. A local user said that wubi covers at least 20% of the Simplified Chinese users. erbi is similar to wubi while it is easier to learn and getting popular.
Created attachment 223971 [details] [review] input: whitelist IBus engines whose languages are not supported by XKB
Created attachment 223972 [details] [review] input: add non-trivial IBus engines to whitelist -- For this patch, honestly I'm not confident that this is the minimal set. But I guess it's probably safe since they are not too many (for each language).
Review of attachment 223969 [details] [review]: The prefix is "region", not "input" This is 2 bug fixes: - "Confirm Vietnamese whitelist items" and - "Remove duplicate Farsi whitelist item" Could you please split them up further?
Review of attachment 223970 [details] [review]: s/input/region/
Review of attachment 223971 [details] [review]: s/input/region/ again The subject line is too long. "Whitelist IBus engines with no XKB equiv" would be good. Expand in the commit message that those IBus engines don't have XKB equivalents, so need to be whitelisted to be usable.
Review of attachment 223972 [details] [review]: s/input/region/ Can you split the confirmation of the Amharic engine in a separate patch?
Created attachment 224179 [details] [review] region: mark Vietnamese IBus engine whitelist as confirmed A local user confirmed that the Vietnamese whitelist items cover 90% of the language users, thus it is now marked as "confirmed".
Created attachment 224180 [details] [review] region: remove Farsi item from IBus engine whitelist m17n:fa:isiri is removed from IBus engine whitelist, since it has XKB equivalent.
Created attachment 224181 [details] [review] region: add wubi and erbi to IBus engine whitelist wubi and erbi (both from ibus-table) are popular stroke based input methods for inputing Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. A local user said that wubi covers at least 20% of the Simplified Chinese users. erbi is similar to wubi and getting popular because of easiness to learn.
Created attachment 224182 [details] [review] region: whitelist IBus engines with no XKB equiv Some IBus engines don't have XKB equivalents, so need to be whitelisted to be usable.
Created attachment 224183 [details] [review] region: add non-trivial IBus engines to whitelist Add non-trivial IBus engines such as transliteration based ones. Though these engines have not yet confirmed by local language users, it would be probably safe to leave them.
Created attachment 224184 [details] [review] region: move Amharic in IBus engine whitelist Move Amharic input method to non-trivial unconfirmed section.
Review of attachment 224179 [details] [review]: ++
Review of attachment 224180 [details] [review]: ++
Review of attachment 224181 [details] [review]: ++
Review of attachment 224182 [details] [review]: ++
Review of attachment 224183 [details] [review]: ++
Review of attachment 224184 [details] [review]: ++