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

Mark Rejhon markybox at gmail.com
Fri Aug 24 16:47:51 UTC 2012


Since the spec targets all audiences,
I may have to remove the "TTY" from the introduction, and simply say:

CHOICE #1 (preferred, to avoid expanding "TTY")
-----------------------------------------
* Various text telephone technologies (e.g. TTY), used by the deaf and
hard of hearing.
6.6.1 c/"TTY gateway"/"TTY/text telephone gateway"/
(No other changes)
-----------------------------------------

CHOICE #2 (secondary, if I must remove TTY)
-----------------------------------------
* Various text telephone technologies (used by the deaf and hard of hearing).
2.4 -- c/"TTY/text telephone alternatives"/"text telephone alternatives"/
6.6.1 -- c/"TTY gateway"/"text telephone gateway"/
8 - c/"This can include TTY and textphones"/"This can include text telephones"/
-----------------------------------------

The term "text telephone" is disliked by some North Americans, but it
is more worldwide-neutral, and I reintroduce the paranthesis to
explain to the non-deaf, what they're for.   North Americans will
quiclky figure out it means "TTY" and Europeans will quickly figure
out it means "textphone" or "real-time text phone", etc.  And people
who don't know what it is, "text telephone" is somewhat
self-explanatory.    However, a major target audience of XEP-0301 is
North America, and therefore it's important to mention TTY.

I am proposing I go with CHOICE #1, since it already defines what a
"TTY" is, without expanding the obsolete acronym not used in the deaf
community.   Just like RADAR and SONAR, TTY is no longer considered an
acronym in general use.

Government legislation about TTY
http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/html/tech-07.html
Do not even expand "TTY".   Why should we??

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gunnar Hellström
<gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se> wrote:
> On 2012-08-23 18:31, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 8/23/12 10:22 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>>> I do realize this might seem pointless to some, but I really do
>>> want to understand where this technology is coming from.
>>
>> Matt, it's basically a matter of the history of computing at this
>> point. Unfortunately, these days (when XML is considered old) few
>> people care about such ancient technologies.
>>
>> The best historical reference I've found is a pamphlet published by
>> the Teletype Corporation in 1963 (Editors: R. A. Nelson; K. M. Lovitt,
>> Editor; October 1963; Teletype Corporation, 5555 West Touhy Avenue,
>> Skokie, Illinois). I found a scanned-in copy here:
>>
>> http://www.rtty.com/TTYSTORY/ttsindex.htm
>>
>> Or did you want something more modern?
>>
>> Peter
>>
> Yes, that reference was the pre-history.
> In the 1960-s deaf engineers in USA got surplus teletypewriters and designed
> an FSK modem for them so they could be used for limited real-time text
> communication over PSTN. I think the original Teletypewriters used DC
> transmission, unsuitable for the PSTN, and needed that upgrade. Later,
> purpose-built terminals were created, using the same transmission
> technology, having the modem built-in. They continued to use the name TTY,
> but are quite different from the original Teletypewriter TTY. That is why we
> should not just refer to Teletypewriter in this use of the term TTY.
>
> People in Europe thought that the idea was good, but took various standard
> modems in use for the same purpose, and created text telephones, sadly with
> different uninteroperable modems in different countries during the 70s and
> 80s. The mistake in created fragmented islands of uninteroperable groups was
> discovered, and an effort was done to harmonize with an automoding modem
> protocol, called ITU-T V.18.
> But the regulatory or market forces were too weak, so V.18 became common
> only in UK.  Other countries continued to use their national variants.
>
> If you really think it is important to have a technical reference describing
> the protocols for TTY and the other text telephone types, we can have a look
> at three documents that might be suitable:
>
> ITU-T Recommendation V.18, Automoding procedures for DCEs working in the
> text telephone mode.
> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.18-200011-I with amendment
> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.18-200211-I!Amd1
> <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.18-200211-I%21Amd1>
> The annexes describe the different modem based protocols for the different
> text telephone standards, ( Including TTY, that is called 5-bit in this
> reference.
>
> ETSI EG 102 230 Duplex Universal Speech and Text
> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/202300_202399/202320/01.02.01_60/eg_202320v010201p.pdf
> Where Annex A.2 contains a brief description of the current textphone
> systems.
>
> IETF RFC 5194 Framework for Real-Time Text over IP Using the Session
> Initiation Protocol (SIP)
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5194.txt
> where section 6.2.5.1. PSTN Interworking contains a very brief introduction
> to the textphone protocols.
>
>
> /Gunnar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the Standards mailing list