Re: Proposal to encode dominoes and other game symbols

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 13:27:32 CDT

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: Fraktur Legibility"

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Michael Everson <>
    > At 12:22 -0400 2004-05-25, wrote:
    > >On dominoes: I agree that there is no plain-text distinction between
    > >domino orientations,
    > Figure 1 shows a distinction being made.
    > >and that it is appropriate to code each domino only once.
    > I disagree.
    > >... I also agree that a single convention such as
    > >low-end-leftmost should be chosen so that CSS glyph rotation will
    > >produce consistent results.
    > CSS glyph rotation? I am astonished. We have not done that with
    > the multitude of arrows we have encoded. Why would you want
    > to make this into a script with complex rendering, John?

    Because the difference in orientation in Figure 1 has no semantic
    difference. The vertical orientation appears to have been chosen
    as a way of emphasizing the double bones in Figure 1, but the
    semantic content of the text remains the same if they were horizontal.
    Rotating an arrow does cause a semantic difference, even when the
    arrow is in plain text. Rotating a domino does not cause any
    difference in meaning when used in plain text. Selecting a standard
    orientation for a domino is not necessary for plain text, but it does
    make it easier to do fancy text or non-linear layout.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 13:28:07 CDT