IDNA Comparisons
Gervase Markham
gerv at mozilla.org
Fri Jul 17 17:39:36 CEST 2009
On 17/07/09 08:09, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> Braille is, according to my limited understanding, a method for
>> encoding another character set in a form readable by people without
>> sight. (The version I know of encodes something pretty like ASCII, but
>> perhaps in other places in the world there are other versions encoding
>> other character sets.) I therefore can't see why one would want
>> Braille domain
>
> The prior line of text contains the funniest statement made in almost 10
> years of off-again, on-again work on the text-labels-in-ASCII problem.
Thank you for laughing at my lack of understanding. Now perhaps you
could explain what I got wrong?
> Second, thinking that braille is "like" a character set, and may,
> without loss of utility, for the purposes of forming identifiers for
> resources, be replaced by the "likened" character set, may be incorrect.
>
> Personal note, when my son was first diagnosed deaf at age 2, I had to
> confront the "deef culture" vs "cochlear implants" question, and I spent
> some time at the Maine School for the Deaf, and came to a conclusion
> that forms what I'm writing here -- ASL is a separate, gestural
> language.
Of course it is. Did I ever deny that? But ASL (or BSL or any of the
other national sign languages) and Braille are two entirely different
things.
Checking the Wikipedia entry on Braille seems to support my
understanding. But perhaps, if there is still doubt, asking a Braille
user might be more fruitful than further speculation.
Gerv
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list