[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Best tagging practice: multi-key sequences?

Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster gmail com>, spake thus:

> I'm not sure if I got Tommy's meaning right, but I think what he was
> getting at didn't have to do with the difference between printable and
> nonprintable characters, but rather the difference between something the
> user types and sees echoed on the screen (like ":wq" in the vi example),
> as opposed to Ctrl+Alt+Del.

Er, Paul, if you can see the echo: it's printable!

More formally, I would reserve keycaps, et. al., to mark-up "function
keys": F1 and friends, as well as Ctl+Alt+Del, including the
you-would-never-type-this-character-in-typing-class category that
emacs loves so well.

Attend me.  It matters not that VI treats ":wq" specially in some
instances.  What is important is that it's a readable sequence.  All
VI commands follow the general form of either "<reps><action><destination>"
like "4cw" or a logical process like "wq".  Massively <keycap>'ing them
destroys the semantics.  On the other hand, the emacs key binding of
"Ctl-C Ctl-F foo \n" is not readable and should be <keycap>'ed
because there are two logical "function" keys introducing the
sequence.  If only emacs had the kind of keyboard it needed, there
would be a special function key whose labels was "Funky Emacs

See the difference?  A key or keys treated as a virtual function key
should be <keycap>'ed; anything else is just <userinput>.  Reserve
the <keycap> family to convey the notion of a function key.

And it just so happens that most logical function key combos are

That any better?

Attachment: pgpoXTt9A2f7u.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]