Re: Proposal to encode dominoes and other game symbols

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 04:23:19 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Proposal to encode dominoes and other game symbols"

    At 19:11 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:

    >This could get out of hand very quickly.

    "Out of hand?" The goal is to encode meaningful things that people
    want to use. We have a small subset of game symbols encoded already,
    and -- as with all symbols -- their availability raises expectations
    among users that fuller sets should be available.

    There is no lack of available code positions. Domino characters would
    certainly be of more utility to more people than an obscure Chinese
    character that exists to name one of the horses of Emperor Wu.

    >Chinese and Japanese (shogi) chess pieces?

    We have two shogi pieces encoded already. If there are others needed,
    why not encode them? Though the Japanese NB did not request them.

    >Chaturanga pieces?

    Now that you mention it, it could well be that Chaturunga and Chinese
    Chess both could be considered extensions to a unified Chess

    WHITE CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (-> white chess queen)
    WHITE CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (-> white chess bishop)
    BLACK CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (-> black chess queen)
    BLACK CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (-> black chess bishop)
    WHITE XIANGQI MANDARIN (advisor, assistant, guard)

    >Is there really a *plain-text* need for this stuff?

    I think so. The examples are used inline in text, and you will note
    that one of the experts has expressed his desire to get away with the
    clumsiness of graphics. These things aren't new. They were once
    important enough for major type foundries to cut and sell type for

    It should be noted that a number of people consider the set of 12
    Chess Symbols encoded to be defective. It is suggested that we need
    to code the chess pieces on background, as they were originally cut
    in type. They are used as units that way, and it is hard to see what
    benefit there is for us to have only half the set. The hatching on
    the background does not extend to the outline of the pieces, showing
    that the background is designed around the piece, not superimposed.

    >At what point is it more practical to say 'use a graphic'?

    When they are just pictures of things. Not when they are coherent
    sets of things with structure, used by people for well over a century
    to typeset information about an important and widespread realm of
    human activity.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 04:26:52 CDT