IDNA Comparisons

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, July 17, 2009 12:11 -0400 Eric Brunner-Williams
> <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> I've asked also John, and until I did, the idea that tactile
>> encoding could have a feel that was distinct from the toAscii
>> value was something I didn't appreciate.
>>     
>
> Oh yeah.  I made that mistake too.  The answer I got (in
> somewhat more colorful language) was that if one could
> distinguish basic Latin characters well enough and quickly
> enough from their embossed shapes in a size small enough for
> finger-scanning, one really wouldn't need Braille.  
>   

I was referring to the tactile sense of from braille, not embossed 
latin. From observing my son, some encoding sequences have an additional 
meaning, not contained in the toAscii value sequence and the literal 
transliteration. These apparent additional meanings may be quite 
subjective, but then velvet can be distinguished from silk by touch alone.

While I chose CMS themes which are accessible (the entire W3C 
accessibility literature is one worth exploring) via text-to-speech, I 
can't say, as a registry operator, that I know why the range U-2801 to 
U-28FF, shouldn't be permitted.

Eric

> That conversation occurred back in the days when the
> conventional wisdom about character recognition involved
> artificial intelligence and the essential characteristics of
> characters, so led to a discussion about whether ASCII in some
> OCR-like font would work better than more conventional fonts,
> i.e., if what one would want to do was character recognition,
> conversion to ASCII, and then rendering on the tactile device in
> that special form rather than simply representing the printed
> characters in tactile form.  But that conversion makes it fully
> as easy to produce Braille on the tactile device as to produce
> shapes in that alternate font and Braille requires fewer pins,
> bumps, or servos, so the answer ends up pretty much the same, at
> least for those who can easily read Braille.
>
>   
>> ...
>>     
>
>     john
>
>
>
>
>
>