It's a non-trivial encoding, though. You can't just change the
display font. There's a lot of processing to go from print to
Braille, and there is more than one Braille representation of
a given piece of text, because there are different levels of
contraction and abbreviation. Even transcribing ASCII characters
into the equivalent Braille characters can be done in different
ways, because different countries have different ways of
representing the non-alpha symbols.
At 19:46 1998-11-09 -0800, Murray Sargent wrote:
>Many languages use Braille. As such it's more of an encoding than a script.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Cowan [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 1998 7:00 PM
>> To: Unicode List
>> Subject: Re: How Many Scripts?
>> Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
>> > John Cowan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In summary, this means that Unicode 3.0 should include:
>> > > [A] total of 38 scripts;
>> > >
>> > Not quite. In addition to the 24 scripts currently in Unicode 2.1:
>> Okay, I miscounted Unicode 2.1; I thought there were 25.
>> > [A] total of 36 scripts.
>> > All other additions are either extensions to existing scripts
>> > or represent symbols or symbol collections. (Braille is not
>> > generally considered a script.)
>> This last seems highly debatable. Why is Braille not a script?
>> I realize that the 256 dot-patterns mean different things in different
>> contexts, but isn't that equally true of other scripts?
>> John Cowan email@example.com
>> e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT