RE: Difference between .brf and .brl files

Yes it would be safe to make such an assumption.  I used nfbtrans to back
translate a .brl file and got perfectly readable ascii out of it.
 


Rot47: <;F56]52D9:6==@?2GJ]>:=>
-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jamal Mazrui
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 15:16
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Difference between .brf and .brl files

Thanks for the answers, folks.  Would it then generally be safe to assume
that if a back translator can work with .brf files, it can also work with
.brl files, since they are less complex?  Specifically, I am incorporating
NFBTrans as a utility to open .brf files in EdSharp and have them converted
to readable text.  I have this working fairly well with English .brf files.
I do not have a true .brl file to test with, however, so am wondering if I
can use the same process for that file extension.  If anyone can point me to
a public URL of a .brl file, I could try it.

Jamal

On
Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Wolfgang Hubert wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:04:05 +0100
> From: Wolfgang Hubert <whubert@xxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Difference between .brf and .brl files
>
> Hi Jamal,
>
> BRF stands for "formatted braille", which means that the file is ready 
> to print in a certain format like 30 cells by 27 lines, whereas BRL 
> files are often files with just one long line per paragraph. This is 
> what I have seen at some libraries which offer files to download.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> __________
> View the list's information and change your settings at 
> http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts: