Geoffrey Waigh wrote:
> or from your data not being considered character data
> by the standards bodies. Given that Braille is now accepted by the
> UTC (but not part of Unicode yet!) and being proposed for the
> ISO 10646 track, it looks like that stance has softened somewhat.
Not at all, actually. I think we learned something crucial about Braille and
accepted it. We didn't "soften" any position on non-character entities.
It turns out that Braille is not a simple one-for-one transliteration
mechanism as was "common knowledge"; it has much deeper implications and it IS
a distinct script. It's possible to "pun" in Braille in ways that cannot be
directly transliterated into Latin script (or whatever you're using,
incidentally); and it is furthermore AMBIGUOUS with respect to reverse
transliteration. E.g., you can go unambiguously from Latin to Braille, but
NOT from any old snippet of Braille back to Latin in a context-free way. I
was extremely surprised to find out all this, but once the realization hit
home with everyone, the only possibility is that Braille must be encoded as an
entity unto itself.
So we did that.
Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT