First, my mail client, edbrowse.sourceforge.net,
doesn't have a reply all function.
Never needed it.
Guess I better implement it. :-)
Should probably take me a couple days of spare time,
if I can find a couple days of spare time;
and I'm sure other users will want it.
Meantime, I pulled the emails out of the headers and pasted them in.
Hope that reasonably works.
As was pointed out, it is difficult to place an accessibility adapter
under one particular subsystem.
Mine takes over the screen, to be a screen reader,
and it captures tty output, because it is more than just a screen reader,
it buffers output, exactly as generated, for my review.
And it uses the serial port to send text to my external synthesizer,
but sometimes it uses an on-board synth, and all this would be useless
if it didn't intercept keystrokes to read lines,
words, letters, and so on.
And I want to enhance it to do the same thing for usb keyboards.
It touches many subsystems, and doesn't belong in any one of them over the others.
It actually changes the computer, in a fundamental way.
That's why I suggested a new directory drivers/accessibility.
Here is another reason.
When you run make config, these accessibility adapters belong together logically.
CONFIG_ACCESSIBILITY
help:
Say Y here if you need to adapt this computer for a disabled user.
Saying Y will not increase the size of your kernel,
it will only offer various modules that you can use to
magnify the screen, modify the keyboard, send text to a speech synthesizer,
and so on.
If you don't anticipate any disabled users, it is ok to say N.
Most people will say N,
or perhaps M, building everything as modules in case they are needed some day.
I don't know, it just makes sense to me I guess.
If we can go along with this,
I can write a patch for drivers/Makefile and drivers/Kconfig
that would put this in place.
Karl Dahlke
Karl Dahlke wrote:
> Meantime, I pulled the emails out of the headers and pasted them in.
> Hope that reasonably works.
Well, you're still breaking the thread by starting a new one.
Guess when you're implementing reply-to-all, you should also think about
implementing support for In-Reply-To: and References: headers (and possibly
a whole lot of other stuff that's supposed to be included in a
standards-compliant MUA).
Cheers,
FJP
Karl Dahlke wrote:
> As was pointed out, it is difficult to place an accessibility adapter
> under one particular subsystem.
> Mine takes over the screen, to be a screen reader,
> and it captures tty output, because it is more than just a screen reader,
> it buffers output, exactly as generated, for my review.
> And it uses the serial port to send text to my external synthesizer,
> but sometimes it uses an on-board synth, and all this would be useless
> if it didn't intercept keystrokes to read lines,
> words, letters, and so on.
> And I want to enhance it to do the same thing for usb keyboards.
> It touches many subsystems, and doesn't belong in any one of them over the others.
I would expect that these various functions are implemented in a modular
fashion, thus also giving some flexibility regarding the file layout of
the source code.
> Here is another reason.
> When you run make config, these accessibility adapters belong together logically.
> CONFIG_ACCESSIBILITY
> help:
> Say Y here if you need to adapt this computer for a disabled user.
> Saying Y will not increase the size of your kernel,
> it will only offer various modules that you can use to
> magnify the screen, modify the keyboard, send text to a speech synthesizer,
> and so on.
> If you don't anticipate any disabled users, it is ok to say N.
I agree that it makes a lot of sense to group all of these drivers into
a common menu. The menu layout doesn't have to be entirely the same as
the source code files layout (it never is the same in the last
consequence anyway), but it would of course help to keep config menu
layout and source files layout mostly aligned.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- --=- =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/