This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: marking up keycaps according to their semantics
- From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>
- To: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif at pinkjuice dot com>
- Cc: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:58:06 -0500 (EST)
- 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