On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:12:30AM -0400, Dave Mielke wrote: > Yes, actually, there is. It's called "en-uebc.ctb". Should it be renamed to > "ueb.ctb"? >
A good idea, and I should have checked before posting; it hasn't been mentioned in the past as long as I can recall. > >I should also point out that I'm opposed to UEB for a number of reasons and I > >don't think that Australia, among other countries, should have adopted it. > >However, I really don't want to enter into that discussion on this mailing > >list. > > Why not? > Not wanting to start anything that might be inflammatory is the main reason. > Whether or not it's good, though, we should maintain an accurate table for it > simply because it exists. Those who want to use it should have it. I agree completely. I don't have any objection to its existence, as a matter of fact; I just don't think it should be imposed on people, especially not people who are unaware of other alternatives and therefore unable to make a choice. With software such as BRLTTY, people are, and should be, free to use whatever braille code they want, and to invent their own or modify an existing one if they so decide. Unfortunately, in the education system and with braille prepared by transcribing organizations, it usually isn't open to the braille reader to make such choices, and that's where I think Abraham Nemeth's concerns with making UEB a standard are most important. _______________________________________________ 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
