RE: Java I18N

Because of the structure of its symbols, Moon presents significant 
disadvantages over Braille in terms of digital representation. Braille's 
dotted form is easily represented using an electronic device -- I have a 
good friend who uses a Braille screen reader and I'm amazed at the speed 
of both the device and his fingers. The combination of curved and straight 
lines in Moon would be significantly harder to engineer for digital 
purposes. Even if you could do this, I can't see it ever being as fast as 
Braille. A Braille reader could follow hyperlinks, but once the text is 
embossed, the representation becomes fixed and flat.

Printed, non-embossed Moon can't be read by the intended audience so that 
doesn't seem to be a true representation of the script.  However,  the 
characters could be encoded for applications that later emboss Moon onto 
paper like the one I referenced.  So yes, you're right. I can see a reason 
for standardized encodings.

Karen





"Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se> 
10/31/2006 11:04 PM

To
<Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
cc
"'Addison Phillips'" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>, "'Dave Pawson'" 
<dave.pawson@gmail.com>, "'I18N'" <www-international@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Java I18N






Karen_Broome wrote:
This raises an interesting point.  Unlike Braille, the script is not 
encoded and likely won't be as this script doesn't lend itself well to 
digital representation, 
Why? It seems to lends itself as much (or as little) to digital 
representation as Braille does. Indeed, I would suggest using private use 
code points in Unicode to represent the Moon characters (until they are 
encoded). If someone makes a proposal document, I don't see any a priori 
reason for not encoding Moon characters.
 
        /kent k