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 Function". 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 non-printing... That any better?
Description: PGP signature