[BRLTTY] Braille tables versus contraction tables.

[Dave Mielke]

[quoted lines by Nicolas Pitre on 2008/04/23 at 22:27 -0400]

>What is there to gain by doing so?

I suspect that their inherent limitation of one braille cell per character will 
eventually become frustrating. My guess, and that's all it is, is that users 
will eventually want single-cell representations for their own language's 
characters plus special ones like box boundaries, but that they'll also 
probably want multi-cell characters for reading those foreign languages that 
they also use.

>Note that I think that text tables should indeed be UTF-8 based.  But 
>their simplicity and obviousness is worth keeping around I would say, 

A basic contraction table full of only "always" statements is just as simple 
and obvious.

>especially if contracted braille can be configured out to slim down the 
>BRLTTY binary.

Yes, but how necessary is that these days. We're no longer into trying to force 
brltty onto an already crammed floppy with next to no run-time libraries.

-- 
Dave Mielke           | 2213 Fox Crescent | I believe that the Bible is the
Phone: 1-613-726-0014 | Ottawa, Ontario   | Word of God. Please contact me
EMail: dave at mielke.cc | Canada  K2A 1H7   | if you're concerned about Hell.
http://FamilyRadio.com/                   | http://Mielke.cc/bible/