I like choice 1 Gregg -------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project http://Raisingthefloor.org --- http://GPII.net On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <[email protected]> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
