RE: media type(s) for braille

Smaller point, a question really.

Since each nation uses 'local' variants
on braille, is a valid consideration to
annotate the source nationality or
'Braille' group. Or is this targetted at
the output transform only?

I know that the UK and Australia 
can share braille coding, but
the US and UK are quite different
from, say Spain.

Any other opinions?

Regards, DaveP

From: Dave Pawson. RNIB(UK)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Al Gilman []
> Sent:	Saturday, November 08, 1997 19:07
> To:
> Subject:	media type(s) for braille
> to follow up on what Hakon Lie said:
> > 
> > Thanks, these references were very helpful. The difference between
> > printed braille and dynamic braille seems important enough to
> warrant
> > two different media types. This is noted along with the description
> of
> > "BRAILLE" in the CSS2 WD [1], but no name pair. How about
> > 
> >   BRAILLE           (dynamic braille)
> >   BRAILLE-PRINT     (static braille)
> > 
> > Alternative suggestions welcome.
> > 
> What we have in HTML 4.0 at the moment is what we would want to
> use, unless we find out that it is unusable.  This indicates [in
> my translation -- consult the HTML WG pages for the exact
> statement] that a media type indication is given by
>  base-type [whitespace] other-stuff
> and terminated by a comma e.g.
>   braille print 40X25,
> Actually the base-type string terminates when a caracter illegal
> in [an SGML name?] this string is found.  But it is
> people-friendly to use a whitespace following the base type.  The
> base-type is supposed to be on the list of know base types, or
> the browser is free to ignore the reference.  But the stylesheet
> is supposed to be selectable based on all of the other stuff as
> well.
> We have the capability to make braille-print a separate base type
> but there are enough other situations where styles will want to
> adapt parametrically and not just by base type so that the
> "qualifier" strategy seems to make more sense.  We can't make
> base types for all the interesting cases.
> Chris has been through the discussions on this.
> -- Al

Received on Monday, 10 November 1997 07:02:45 UTC