On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Dave Mielke wrote:
> [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.
Well, to me the "one character, one braille cell" is really important.
I almost never use the contracted mode because spatial placement of
things is primordial in my work.
> A basic contraction table full of only "always" statements is just as simple
> and obvious.
Then, if it can be made to work with no functional difference I won't
mind. I would propose the "set" keyword for this though, which would
look more natural than a bunch of "always" statements, and that could
also disambiguate the space representation, such that:
set \x20 0
could mean that, when in effect, each space is actually producing a
corresponding non-collapsed empty dot pattern.
> >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.
Possibly, indeed.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
This message was sent via the BRLTTY mailing list.
To post a message, send an e-mail to: BRLTTY@mielke.cc
For general information, go to: http://mielke.cc/mailman/listinfo/brltty
