From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 11:29:17 CST
At 10:32 AM 10/7/03 +0530, email@example.com wrote:
>The only justification mentioned so far for changing Braille from So to Lo
>is to be able to use Braille in identifiers. I'm not sure why someone
>whould want to use Braille in this way, for a start how would these
>identifiers be translated into Braille?
Braille identifiers only make sense when the whole source file has been
translated to Braille. However, the parsing semantics applied to it should
then be determined by the properties of the original characters (before
applying the Braille mapping). If one does want to work directly with a
Braill transcoded stream, then such systm must support *dynamic* property
assignments. That's something that's outside the scope of the Unicode Standard.
In conclusion, it seems that the correct set of *default* properties for
Braille would be determined by the needs of inserting Braille strings into
other text (for educational manuals and similar specifications).
As Marco has pointed out that means BIDI = L and I believe it also means
GC=So, and other properties assigned as they are for other characters that
share BIDI=L and GC=So.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST