eBraille 1.0 spec - Examples 19 & 20 are confusing

[franciscoONCE]

Should Example 19 say “A single braille code” only? Also, is Example 19 necessary and/or valid given that all code-specific information SHOULD be provided? In this same section, can we consider “bar by bar” (or any other music-related transcription format) a code-specific term? Though much needed, is this the right place to include this information?

[mattgarrish]

This question initially confused me as the example numbers are different in the current editor's draft, but I think changing the first description is fine.

But I'm wondering if the code needs repeating in the example showing contracted and uncontracted braille are present. It makes it confusing to know whether you only use a single parenthesis for all the information, as the statement above suggests, or why contractions is a special case where you have to repeat the code and the parentheses.

For example, should it be:

<meta property="a11y:code">
   UEB (Uncontracted, Contracted)
</meta>

Also, when do you break out codes into separate metadata fields? Do you repeat the tag only if the braille code changes, or should you repeat the tag for each new descriptor in parentheses?

Granted, the editor's note at the bottom suggests more work needs to be done here, but maybe we should move that note to the beginning of the section until we return to this.