Re: [docbook] keycap vs keysym

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

Thomas Schraitle wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> On Montag, 24. September 2007, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> [...]
>> Emacs is very heavy on key bindings.
>> M-C-F1  is press ALT, control and F1.
>>
>> How might that be marked up?
> 
>  <keycombo action="press">
>     <keycap function="meta">M</keycap>
>     <keycap function="control">Ctrl</keycap>
>     <keycap>F1</keycap>
>  </keycombo>


Yes. I like that. Looks right to me! Thanks.
Markus, I agree about Meta not being a 'key'... but
in the emacs manuals I think it would be plain.
Given that caveat, can you improve on Thomas' input above?

> 
> 
>> M-x revert-buffer is another command.
> 
>  <keycombo>
>    <keycap function="meta">M</keycap>
>    <keycap>x</keycap>
>  </keycombo>
>  <command>revert-buffer</command>

Less sure about this. revert-buffer isn't a command...
This is why I mentioned <userinput>... except you
can't have userinput within keycombo, so it would
need to be external, i.e. not in the same wrapper.

Also, emacs has this idea that Meta X is written M-x
Control X is written C-X to indicate that they
are pressed together?
Is the hyphen 'styling' (i.e. introduce at the xslt stage?)

Another example

C-x w r    means  unhighlight-regexp

<keycombo> seems wrong with the combinations?
<keycombo>C-x</keycombo><userinput>w r</

Still missing the wrapper.

Is the content model wrong? I.e. allow CDATA within keycombo?

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT, XSL-FO and Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk