[SCIM] Re: [PATCH]Clarify using InputMethod in KDE

[James Su]

Hi all,
  It will be great if UIM and SCIM can cooperate each other. Because 
SCIM has a flexible design which can be act as an input method library 
as well as a network server (like iiimf). So I think it should be better 
if UIM can be act as an input method module of SCIM.
  But recently I noticed that the current API of SCIM can not support 
UIM very well, for example, SCIM currently does not support generic im 
property. I'm extending SCIM to support this feature. And more 
important, I and several input method specialists coming from RedHat, 
ThizLinux, Sun Wah Linux, RecFlag linux etc. took a meeting in these 
days. We discussed the issue of current input method frameworks very 
deeply, especially IIIMF and SCIM. I got many new idea in this meeting, 
and decided to make a big change to SCIM API. These changes may be done 
before the end of June. After that change, I think the architecture SCIM 
should be strong enough to compete with IIIMF.

Regards
James Su

Cougar wrote:

>Hi Kazuki,
>
>--- Kazuki Ohta <mover at hct.zaq.ne.jp> wrote:
>  
>
>>Probably 3."3".x,
>>We're now working hardly to achieve this.
>>
>>We have the answer from TrollTech developer (Lars
>>Knoll)
>>that if we create the patch that doesn't break BC,
>>the
>>patch will be merged into Qt3."3".x.
>>    
>>
>that's Wonderful indeed ;) Then it seems there's not
>so much time left for me to implement a qt-immodule
>for scim
>
>  
>
>>For example, preedit has some attributes.
>>On Qt3.x, there seems no way to render preedit's
>>attribute correctly without breaking BC.
>>So, this version only supports the "underline" attr.
>>
>>There are some other different points, but Yamaken
>>(one of UIM developer) is now trying hard to achieve
>>these
>>problem without breaking BC.
>>Therefore, we can probably achieve near-perfect
>>qt-immodule
>>on Qt3.x.
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks for you efforts 
>
>  
>
>>>>uim and SCIM should collaborate each other!
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>So you are one of the UIM guys ;)
>>>Yes, I do agree with you that UIM and SCIM should
>>>collaborate. Both James_su (the primary author of
>>>SCIM) and I hope UIM and SCIM can merge into one
>>>project to fight against IIIMF and overcome it.
>>>      
>>>
>>Ohhhh, yes!
>>We are always fighting against IIIMF!
>>yusuke (the primary author of UIM), tkng (the
>>maintainer of UIM),
>>Yamaken (the develper of UIM) and I once discussed
>>how UIM can
>>collaborate with SCIM!
>>    
>>
> 
>  
>
>>I think it's time to discuss how UIM and SCIM merge
>>into one project each other!
>>    
>>
>I think so
>
>  
>
>>I wanna be your friend:-D
>>    
>>
>Me TOO ;)
> 
>  
>
>>Do you think we should discuss about this on
>>MailingList? or any ideas?
>>    
>>
>We can discuss in SCIM mailinglist
>(scim at freedesktop.org) if you want.
>
>As you know, both UIM and SCIM are some sorts of
>"platforms", so if they are merged into one project,
>probably only one framework will survive.
>
>James_su and I think maybe SCIM has a better
>development framework, so we hope the merged project
>will be based upon exsiting SCIM framework.
>
>what's your opinion then?
>
>(BTW: I cc this email to scim mailing list as you can
>see)
>
>Regards,
>Cougar
>
>
>	
>		
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 
>
>_______________________________________________
>scim mailing list
>scim at freedesktop.org
>http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
>
>  
>