On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Dave Mielke wrote: > [quoted lines by Nicolas Pitre on 2008/04/28 at 11:11 -0400] > > >> If we use contraction tables in place of the strictly one-to-one text > >> tables, > >> what are your collective thoughts on the one major difference that > >> contraction > >> table support splits braille windows on word boundaries whereas text table > >> support doesn't? > > > >Could you precise what kind of thoughts you're after? > > It's simply that there is that difference and I'm looking for ideas. When > reading contracted braille one typically doesn't want a partial word at > either > end of the display so, if the last word doesn't fit, the software backs up to > the nearest word break. When reading uncontracted braille, however, one > typically wants the break from one braille window to the next to occur > wherever > it happens to be, including in the middle of a word. It'd be a shame to have > to > keep the two types of tables just because of that simple usage difference.
Why not? Although you wish to uniformize both table handling methods which has some merits, their usage is often completely separate. 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
