[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: marking up keycaps according to their semantics
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Tobias Reif wrote: > <keycombo action="simul"> > <keycap function="control"/> > <keycap function="alt"/> > <keycap function="backspace"/> > </keycombo> > > <keycombo action="simul"> > <keycap function="alt"/> > <keycap function="shift"/> > <keycap>I</keycap> > </keycombo> i'm uncomfortable with this way of extending keycaps to handle the additional keys. the problem is that something like the "escape" key can be used in two different ways: 1) it can be a "modifier", if you want to call it that, in that it can be pressed just before pressing another key, or 2) it can be a separate key press all on its own, such as to press "escape" to, say, exit a program in either case, there should be a way to say, "i want to press the Escape key here", which logically suggests that there should be a separate keycap-type entry for "Escape". "Escape", or "Alt", or others keys like that, i don't think belong simply as attributes of a keycap. really, they're keys in their own right and should be treated as such. i *can* accept the above extension, but it just doesn't sit totally well with me, although i'm still pondering what i would do differently. rday
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]