Marco Cimarosti <marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it> wrote:
> But such a thing actually has a precedent: the Braille block. But
> this had a (faint!) justification: those Braille patterns are not
> used to "encode Braille in Unicode", but rather to encode commands
> to be sent to Braille printers ("embossers", actually).
I think the reason the Braille block is legitimate, and doesn't fall
into the codes-for-codes trap you described, is that it is a flexible
cipher rather than a fixed one. The same Braille symbol can stand for
different letters depending on which script, or even which alphabet
within the same script, it is used to represent. And then there's Grade
2 Braille, which completely breaks the "simple cipher" model.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
