RE: Unicode Public Review Issues update

From: Jony Rosenne (
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 16:09:31 CST

Please note that Braille is used also for Hebrew. We use the same codes, but
they are assigned a different meaning. The reader has to know or guess which
language it is.

I don't remember whether Hebrew Braille is written RTL or LTR.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of Asmus Freytag
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:58 PM
> To:;
> Subject: Re: Unicode Public Review Issues update
> At 10:29 AM 10/6/03 +0530, wrote:
> > > The Unicode Technical Committee has posted some new issues for
> > > public review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
> > >
> > >
> >
> >A question about the issues already open: What is the
> justification for
> >proposing to make Braille Lo?
> Among other things it would make it part of identifiers.
> However, there's
> been some suggestion that this is a bad idea. Whether or not
> a braille
> symbol actually stands for a letter or a digit or a
> punctuation mark is
> entirely dependent on a higher level protocol.
> Also, by making them Lo, any parser that tries to collect
> words, would run
> them together with any surrounding regular letters and
> digits. That seems
> odd, but perhaps its not any more odd than mixing Devanagari and Han.
> We've given Braille a script ID, since it's used for running
> text, unlike a
> string of symbols.
> There was a lot of discussion in the meeting which is the
> reason why UTC is
> asking for public input before deciding.
> The original model for these was that your text processing is done in
> non-Braille, and on the last leg to a device, you would transcode the
> regular text to a Braille sequence using a domain and
> language specific
> mapping. Having the codes in Unicode allows you to preserve
> 'final form'
> and transmit that as needed w/o having to also transmit the
> text-to-braille
> mapping(s) that were used to generate the Braille version of
> the text.
> (This assumes that the eventual human reader can do 'autodetection'.)
> Needless to say, conceived this way, Braille does not fit neatly into
> Unicode's text handling model. The General Category, being
> very simplistic,
> can only express a single aspect of a characters use. Usually
> we can agree
> on what that primary aspect is, so gc is reasonably useful as
> a quick cut.
> However, Braille is a bit resistant if put to the question:
> Are you symbol
> or letter?
> In reality, the Braille codes are glyph codes. We decided at
> some point not
> to allow any new types of gc values. If we didn't have that
> restriction, we
> could assign them an *Sb or *Lb (for *Symbol-Braille or
> *Letter-Braille).
> But that's an option we don't have.
> One thing that we are hoping to learn is whether people are
> actually using
> these Braille codes and are using them in ways that are or are not
> compatible with the model we describe in
> (see
> section 14.9).
> In terms of the organization of the book we've clearly sorted
> Braille among
> the symbols, by the way.
> Any comments?
> A./

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST