bug#37530: 26.1; Tack characters translated incorrectly

[Axel Svensson <mail@axelsvensson.com>]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:59 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > I'd like someone to do the research and find out why Markus Kuhn's
> > > suggestions were changed.  I'd like also to state the source of the
> > > data and the information about the change reason(s) in x-win.el, where
> > > we have the mapping.
> >
> > If somebody wants to do that research, be my guest.  I don't see the
> > point -- this is the data the X server uses, so it's authoritative.
>
> I'd like to hear more opinions, please.
>

My opinion is that keysym mappings that aren't part of the
authoritative X11 source should still be added.

Motivation: IIUC, X11 clients primarily receive keysyms, not code
points. How the translation is done is then up to the application.
Many applications do this translation using an application-internal
mapping (like indeed Emacs is) without necessarily referring to
whatever is present on the OS. These mappings, drawing from several
sources, have few if any conflicts. Therefore, the sensible,
pragmatic, common and expected thing to do is to attempt to translate
them rather than ignore them, even if they aren't present in the
source files on the OS in question. If Emacs receives a key event with
a certain keysym, the user clearly expects the application to do
something with it.