From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 07:09:43 CDT
At 04:40 -0700 2004-05-26, Andrew C. West wrote:
>But we're not encoding dominos per se, but rather encoding
>representations of domino pieces in textual contexts. Whilst
>pictures of domino sets are interesting, and provide useful
>background information, I would imagine that examples of the textual
>usage of domino glyphs is what is required in order for domino
>characters to be accepted for encoding by the UTC and WG2.
Be serious. It doesn't take a genius to see that if people are using
domino characters in text descriptions of domino rules and play and
that there will be a need for all the major varieties. The 15- and
18-tile sets are used in tournament play. Just because someone hasn't
put them on a web page (in a clumsy graphic) yet doesn't mean that
it isn't reasonable to wait for them to do so.
Symbols are "hard" to encode because many people seem to be stuck on
"semantic" meaning. Symbol sets are often just that, sets, and one of
the things we will have to do is to complete the sets.
For instance, whether or not some of the symbols we have in the
standard got there because of some "legacy" set at one stage, the
fact is that real users now and in the future don't and won't care
about those old character sets. That we have "geometric shapes" for
instance but lack the PENTAGON is extremely silly, and is not very
friendly to the primary-school teacher trying to use his computer to
make documents for his pupils.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 07:11:43 CDT