[Standards] Comments on XEP-0301 -- Section 1 - TTY

Matthew Miller linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
Thu Aug 23 16:22:45 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Aug 23, 2012, at 00:51, Gunnar Hellström wrote:

> On 2012-08-23 00:34, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 22, 2012, at 16:32, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> /The US Access Board has the following definition in its latest proposal for Accessible procurement, Section 508. E.103.4
>>> /http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm
>>> /
>>> TTY./  Equipment that enables interactive text based communications through the transmission of frequency-shift-keying audio tones across the public switched telephone network.  TTY includes devices for real time text communications and voice and text intermixed communications.  Examples of intermixed communications are voice carry over and hearing carry over.  One example of a TTY is a computer with TTY emulating software and modem.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is a bit special that we have a North American and an international term.
>>> 
>> The citation does not need to be inline with the rest of the text.  The vast majority of the time, this is done using end notes in XEPs.
>> 
>>> It looks strange to devote so much space and effort to get the US term properly explained. Shall we just delete TTY, and only say Text telephone ?
>>> 
>> That works, I believe you still need the reference.  See above.
> Here is a simple one from FCC that should at least meet the requirement to be authoritative:
> 
> TTY
> A type of machine that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate over the phone using a keyboard and a viewing screen. It is sometimes called a TDD.
> 
> http://transition.fcc.gov/glossary.html
> 
> It however contains the TDD that should be depreciated. And has not the indication that it is a North American subset term for more generally is called text telephone.
> Sufficient?
> 
> /Gunnar

I do realize this might seem pointless to some, but I really do want to understand where this technology is coming from.  If we are going to reference a prior art, I really want to understand that prior art, and how it applies/influences/precedes this art.  This is why I harp on references.  That we are having the discussion tells me this isn't obvious technology, and I want to make sure our documents properly refer to the basis.

Given that, maybe it would be better to reference the protocols used by the devices in question.  The only one I could readily find is on Baudot, described in "Fax, Modem, and Text for IP Telephony" (Cisco Press, ISBN 978-1-58795-761-8) and "EIA-TIA-825-A" < http://ftp.tiaonline.org/TR-30/TR-30.1/Public/TR-30.1/2000-01-BocaRaton/sp4628.pdf >.  Do either or both of these adequately describe the protocols in use?

I don't want a technical document mentioning prior art unless we can authoritatively reference a description of that prior art.  If that can't be done, then maybe we shouldn't mention it directly in this technical specification.


- - m&m

Matthew A. Miller
<http://goo.gl/LK55L>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQNljVAAoJEJq6Ou0cgrSPIAIH/ity8rk75Q6QnP9BpALrkdem
P2tshuwhi/zzgkDHlSm83WnbjOk01DQ9pZ+JKg5qVyMVtKV+MS6851ZqwO1039/i
eVxeeMhzMP1yOinKvvH7fwpoziyYaQb6TAPMmaHOtda+/frs90cJ39bk8GPERu6L
xQk8YmDbEVVXQQk2fZdLkMqTmk1H4Liix2ud4JxK5R1L/OboBA09ZSBwKEdiWwPC
Aux2ofH8OLuB23BVWrPAsn6/k+pNkILkL3mC7b5OGgXsGFxX26OJOO9ULSFWgVus
a0FW6hawjsBkG/3m8XgEPHaVH65+KELmlYuJAMXymacCTeqGdlJLfBw/vHlIwxs=
=vjz1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Standards mailing list