Thank you very much @HenriApperloo,

Before we're going to merge your stuff, a few more things need to be taken care of:

• For starters, we should delete the old Dutch tables (tables/nl-be-g1.utb and tables/Nl-Nl-g1.utb).
• We should have a single table for the Netherlands and Belgium, because as of 2005 they have one common standard. The name should be "nl" and not "nl-BE" or "nl-NL".
• Find out how grade 0 differs from grade 1. Neither of the two seem to have contractions or computer braille, so it's unclear to me why there need to be two grades. The tables seem to be mostly the same but have some differences, mostly in the character definitions. We need to find out whether these differences are there because there are actually two systems in use or because I made some mistakes interpreting the specification. If needed we should contact PHK, for whom I originally made the Belgian table, and ask them to approve our modifications.
• Refactor in order to eliminate as much as possible duplication.
• Create tests. A good start would be to translate the doctest (tests/doctests/nl-BE-g1.ctb_test.txt) to a harness file.

Thank you very much @HenriApperloo,

Before we're going to merge your stuff, a few more things need to be taken care of:

• For starters, we should delete the old Dutch tables (tables/nl-be-g1.utb and tables/Nl-Nl-g1.utb).

Totally agree

• We should have a single table for the Netherlands and Belgium, because as of 2005 they have one common standard. The name should be "nl" and not "nl-BE" or "nl-NL".

Is this also hand we are meditating.

• Find out how grade 0 differs from grade 1. Neither of the two seem to have contractions or computer braille, so it's unclear to me why there need to be two grades. The tables seem to be mostly the same but have some differences, mostly in the character definitions. We need to find out whether these differences are there because there are actually two systems in use or because I made some mistakes interpreting the specification. If needed we should contact PHK, for whom I originally made the Belgian table, and ask them to approve our modifications.

Or is your version is already level 0 and level 1 is not because one degree contains contractions and grade 0 no. I'm documentation (pdf) there searching to detect. Errors or differences in interpretation

• Refactor in order to eliminate as much as possible duplication.
• Create tests. A good start would be to translate the doctest (tests/doctests/nl-BE-g1.ctb_test.txt) to a harness file.

@HenriApperloo Can we have a NEWS entry for this change? Thanks

@egli I'll take care of the NEWS entry. We're still working on the change and I don't really know yet what we will do exactly. We will start with updating the table for Holland. Then we must find out how we can eventually merge the tables for Belgium and Holland, and I'm not sure if we're ready for that. Henri has send me a document with a detailed investigation of the differences between the Belgium table and his table. I'll need to have a look at that and discuss it further with him. Maybe I'll also need to contact the Belgian library for the blind.

Henri also sent me some official documents describing the Dutch braille standard. You think there is a place for these kind of documents in the liblouis repository?

On Tue 05/08/14,14:43, Bert Frees wrote:

Henri also sent me some official documents describing the Dutch
braille standard. You think there is a place for these kind of
documents in the liblouis repository?

We don't currently have such a place, but it is something that we really
should be collecting where possible for future reference.

If the material can be obtained in English that would be ideal but if
not then the native version is still useful for any future person wishing
to alter that table.

Maybe create a branch "brailleFormalSpec" or similar, in which we can
have directories for each table or language where we can add these
documents.

thanks,
Mesar

You mean a branch for the documents only? Should we be concerned about copyright infringement?

Maybe create a branch "brailleFormalSpec" or similar, in which we can have directories for each table or language where we can add these documents.

Instead I'd rather create a new repo where we can keep this sort of documentation.

On Wed 06/08/14,02:03, Bert Frees wrote:

You mean a branch for the documents only?

yes

Should we be concerned about copyright infringement?

It is worth asking about, but since they are formal specs they should
probably have been released by the relative braille organization as a
standard.
Unless formal specs are open and available, then it is rather dificult
for manufacturers/product developers to create products for that market.

We are not releasing these documents as part of our project, but all we
are doing is saying these are the documents which we used to developed
the tables, and these are the urls where we got them from.

We don't want to rely purely on the links, as they are brital and
documents may move about.

thoughts?

thanks,
Mesar

@bertfrees what is the story here? Did we agree to move this to release 2.7?

Yes

Now all that is left is the actual combining of the Belgian and Dutch tables. I've explained the differences in the comments. Now I need to contact CBB and PHK and get them to agree on a common table.

Closing PR. We'll making a new issue for the actual combining of the two tables.

With respect to the g0/g1 question (28 July 2014): See http://kimbols.be/lectuur-literatuur/braille/het-brailleschrift.html#Graad_n_Nkg1.
g1 had four contractions (for sch, ch, oe, ij), mentioned in the part for g0!). As the text states, these were used in books, but are now used for some accented characters. It seems that the standard 2005 does not have them anymore, so indeed g1 probably does not exist anymore.
Note that I am a programmer, not an expert in braille standards.

Interesting link. I never knew Dutch used to have contractions. Now it makes more sense to rename the table to g0. Thanks!