[openi18n-im:01580] [Fwd: Re: Should Kanji and Hangul have the same keycode?]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_tJrRkE66GKO6b75QtiiO8w)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=GB18030
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT



--Boundary_(ID_tJrRkE66GKO6b75QtiiO8w)
Content-type: message/rfc822;
 name="Re: Should Kanji and Hangul have the same keycode?"

Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com ([192.18.19.177])
 by sedge2-mail1.singapore.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep  9 2005))
 with ESMTP id <[email protected]>; Mon,
 19 Dec 2005 11:09:08 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep  9 2005))
 id <[email protected]> (ORCPT [email protected]); Mon,
 19 Dec 2005 11:09:07 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from phys-sedge2-1.singapore.sun.com ([129.158.123.14])
 by mail-apac.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep  9 2005))
 with ESMTP id <[email protected]> (ORCPT [email protected])
 ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:09:07 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from dm-prc-01.singapore.sun.com ([129.158.71.109])
 by sedge2-mail1.singapore.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep  9 2005))
 with ESMTP id <[email protected]>
 (ORCPT [email protected]); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:09:07 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from sunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM
 (sunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.17])	by dm-prc-01.singapore.sun.com
 (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id jBJ3942T000204; Mon,
 19 Dec 2005 11:09:05 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com
 (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.149.247.22])	by sunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM
 (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id jBJ393A01166	for
 <@sunmail3.sfbay.sun.com:[email protected]>; Sun,
 18 Dec 2005 20:09:03 -0700 (MST)
Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by
 nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005))
 id <[email protected]> for [email protected]
 (ORCPT [email protected]); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sineb-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.19.7])
 by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005))
 with ESMTP id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected] (ORCPT [email protected]); Sun,
 18 Dec 2005 19:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fe-apac-06.sun.com
 (fe-apac-06.sun.com [192.18.19.177] (may be forged))
	by sineb-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBJ390IQ003879	for
 <[email protected]>; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:09:00 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com
 (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep  9 2005))
 id <[email protected]> (original mail from [email protected])
 for [email protected] (ORCPT [email protected]); Mon,
 19 Dec 2005 11:09:00 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from [192.168.0.238] ([129.158.216.230])
 by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep  9
 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected] (ORCPT [email protected]); Mon,
 19 Dec 2005 11:09:00 +0800 (SGT)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:09:08 +0800
From: Yong Sun <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Should Kanji and Hangul have the same keycode?
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Envelope-from: [email protected]
X-Envelope-to: [email protected]
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=GB18030
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-PMX-Version: 5.1.1.222179
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
Original-recipient: rfc822;[email protected]

Hi, Kasha,

I asked this question to Hideki when I was in SWG1 meeting. He told me 
these keycode difinitions are from M$, and the guy in M$ also sent him 
an email to confirm that Hanja and Kanji have the same keycode in their 
difinition.

I also discussed with Federic, he also agreed with your opinion. If no 
one object, we will change the header files and cfs in next build.

Regards,

AShiZaWa KaZuNoRi wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:02:04 +0800
>From: Yong Sun <[email protected]>:
>  
>
>>Hi, Kasha, and guys,
>>
>> From include/iiimp/iiimp-keycode.h, we could see the keycode difinitions
>>of Hangul and Kanji keys, as following:
>>
>>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_KANA = 21,
>>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_HANGUL = 21,
>>
>>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_KANJI = 25,
>>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_HANJA = 25,
>>
>>Kanji is already set as trigger key in iiimsf by default for Japanese, but
>>Hangul is also a trigger key for Korean, and Hanja (which is 25) is the key
>>to translate Hangul characters to Chinese characters. We can not register
>>21 and 25 at the same time.
>>
>>I suggested to make Kanji and Hangul have the same keycode in iiimp.
>>Or we have to change the mapping between xkeysym and iiim keycode, i.e.,
>>when I met XK_Hangul, I would send IIIMF_KEYCODE_HANJA.
>>
>>What's you suggestion and comments?
>>    
>>
>
>I've discussed this issue with Ishimura-san.  We agreed that
>duplicated code in iiimp-keycode.h is problematic.  I think the
>following definitions are reasonable.  All, opinion, please.
>
>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_KANA = 21,
>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_HANGUL = 22,
>
>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_KANJI = 25,
>    IIIMF_KEYCODE_HANJA = 26,
>
>
>I also think that 2935 and 2937 can be reverted.
>
>Thanks,
>  
>


--Boundary_(ID_tJrRkE66GKO6b75QtiiO8w)--