Hi Ian,
ropers wrote on Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:37:16AM +0200:
> On 11/07/2019, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote:
>> There is no reason to make it different. ASCII is a subset of Unicode,
>> with the same numbering. So the "U" looks redundant to me.
> There are several reasons why it isn't redundant:
Your reasons are not part of the solution but part of the problem.
Logically, the task is very simple:
1. Only UTF-8 input is needed because ASCII is a subset of that,
and no other character set or encoding must be supported.
(Of course, a method to input arbitrary bytes that do not form
characters is also needed but that is rather tangential to this
discussion).
2. Physical keys must produce the characters printed on them.
3. One method is needed to input codepoints numerically, but not
more than one.
4. One method may be convenient to enter often-needed characters
quickly (like Compose in X) and likely one mathod for languages
that need very large numbers of characters (i don't know much
about those).
Items 1 to 3 are really the meat of the matter. Item 4 is more like
an add-on for convenience.
That said, i think i'll retire from this thread because we are just
talking. Besides, i have a strong suspicion that you shold pick a
simpler project, in particular as your first project. This one
seems seriously difficult conceptionally, exceedingly difficult
technically, in particular regarding the complex kernel-xenocara-userland
interactions, and *terrifyingly* complicated from a system integration
perspective - and you know, when the goal is to make something fit
for practical use (and commit), the system intergration part is
often the most dangerous obstacle in the first place, often challenging
even for seasoned developers. Nothing wrong with picking a project
that is *technically* difficult if you feel adventurous (as long
as it is cleanly self-contained), but do try to start with projects
where system integration is easy, or expect almost certain eventual
failure - quite likely after already having invested lots of work.
Yours,
Ingo
P.S. about broken spam filters:
> I've just noticed yet another false positive where Gmail has
> classified your email as spam here for the n-th time. I'm not sure if
> that's just happening to my mailbox, or if it's Gmail-wide or, worse,
> if lots of MTAs out there treat your emails as spam.
So far, i have heard about outlook.com (which obviously nobody
should use anyway) occasionally classifying all mail coming from
the University of Karlsruhe (kit.edu) as spam, and about gmail.com
doing the same in rare cases. Both of these appear to sometimes
consider that university - which is among the dozen or so most
important technical research universities in Germany - as a spam
site. There is nothing much that i can do about that.
> (There seems to be a trend where big corps are quite happy to
> discourage people from running their own MTAs
Not just running their own MTAs, also using non-commercial .edu
infrastructure.
> and increasingly throw their weight around rejecting anything that
> isn't credentialled up the wazoo with SPF, DKIM, DMARC or whatever,
Of course large advertising corporations do what it takes to grab
market share, and vendor-lock in by breaking compatibility is a classic
method for doing that.
If your spam filter is broken, fix it. I can hardly help with that.
If your ISP won't let you fix it, get a better provider.
Even if i wanted to contact the kit.edu postmasters to ask whether
they can do anything about your problem, you didn't provide any
information whatsoever - like for which exact reason which receiving
Google mail server classified which sending kit.edu mailserver as
a spam site, and at which exact time. Such information should be
sent privately, not to public lists.
