[Unified Braille For All] Four minor typos in Code Comparison 1

[Robert Englebretson]

Susan and All,

I hate to belabor the point about what were obviously four unintended 
typos, but you have completely misconstrued what I said about the typo 
in example 6.  Here is what I said:

"p. 6, the very last line of the page, the closing parenthesis in the 
example identifier is wrong.  It's transcribed here as dots 2-345, but 
again, should
actually be written as dots 5-345."

Note that I said "example identifier" not "example".  The example 
identifier here is the  (4) at the beginning of the line.  The closing 
parenthesis in the UEB example identifier is mistranscribed as dots 
2-345, and I just went back to the BRF file that was sent around 
yesterday to confirm this.  I stand by what I said in my earlier message.

I am fully aware of how superscripts work in UEB, and I was not 
misreading the grouping symbol here.  There is no ambiguity whatsoever 
in how UEB deals with superscripts.  Both UEB and NUBS have ways of 
dealing with what is essentially a problem of linearizing a formatting 
aspect of print:  NUBS does this by including an "extra" symbol not 
found in print, to show a return to baseline, UEB does this by including 
an "extra" pair of grouping symbols not found in print, to make clear 
that this is a complex exponent.  Both add something "extra" to print in 
this regard, since braille is limited to linear format (unless of course 
someone wants to go the ViewPlus route that John Gardener and others 
were advocating a few years ago.)



Best,
--Robert