From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261162AbTHST1E (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:27:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261341AbTHST0s (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:26:48 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:2432 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261317AbTHSTZm (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:25:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:37:02 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200308191937.h7JJb2M0000234@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: aebr@win.tue.nl, macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl Subject: Re: Input issues - key down with no key up Cc: jamie@shareable.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au, vojtech@suse.cz Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Etc. Set 3 is a pain. Nobody wants it, except the people who have read > the spec only and say - look, neat, a single code for a single keystroke. > Reality is very different. I totally agree that in 99.9% of cases, Set 2 is a more sensible choice than Set 3. On the other hand, a configuration option to only support Set 3, and not implement all of the work-arounds would shrink the kernel by a few K, which would be nice. Also, the keyboard I'm using requires Set 3 to operate fully, although as it's quite possible that I am the only person on the planet who uses this model of keyboard with Linux, that might not be a very valid argument :-). John.