From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 02:27:17 CDT
From: "Rick McGowan" <rick@unicode.org>
> Ken wrote...
> > John that going beyond the double-twelve (for now) is just speculative
> > and not supported by actual use in dominoes books.
>
> I don't think this is speculative. A photograph of production domino sets
> above 12 is included in the proposal. We might as well add them now as
> later.
What is speculative is possibly the whole proposal that Michael indicated. May
be he's tired of reading so many comments about its nice Phoenician proposal and
wanted something else for others wanting to play with Unicode.
This initial document is not completely unuseful, it's just a draft, asking for
comments, and looking for reactions.
But I do feel that rare/speculative large sets of dominoes are unnecessary. At
least this proposal should be splitted into separate subsets, each discussed
separately for later approval:
- the 0..9-dots dominoes (100 items) in one horizontal orientation
- the dominoes in vertical orientation encoded as variants (by 90° rotation
clockwise): 100 items
- the card decks: including and unified tarot knight/cavalier, a second joker
(but the first joker possibly unified with Tarot "Excuse"/Star), and the 21
numbered Trumps/Atouts: 78 items+1 or 2 for Jokers
- the few additional Chess/Dames items (may be also Reversi black and white
items), or grid patterns for Go (an empty cross, or crosses with white or black
seed, possibly with border/corner crosses to make close grids)
Many of these items will be rendered correctly by using fonts with consistent
proportions for their glyphs, and the encoding should be made so that such use
would not conlfict with other proportional use of the characters (by avoiding
over-unification, meaning that sets should be kept consistent and grouped
logically: punctuation bullets for example would not qualify as game items).
There's no emergency I think (unless Michael wanted to add its proposal for the
next UTC meeting). My opinion is that this proposal is there to wait for
reactions by publishers. However I note that most newspaper editors already have
their own graphic tools (created since long) to publish their daily games page
(including crosswords, bridge problems, chess problems, ...), and they don't
need such plain-text conventions (for chess for example, the ASCII notation like
"e3 .. Cxf6+!" is used since long as a admitted standard to note problems, and
gamers that play chess through email use it since long).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 02:29:01 CDT