From: Jukka K. Korpela (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 30 2006 - 09:56:52 CST
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Andreas Prilop wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> I don't think Unicode should, or will, cover the use of colors
>> in characters (apart from the existence of "white" and "black"
>> versions of some symbols, like chess pieces, which are
>> differences in shape rather than color - "black" and "white"
>> really stand for "foreground color" and "background color").
> Do you mean U+2654 ... U+265F ?
> IMHO, there is no different shape
The word "shape" was probably a poor choice by me. What I meant is that as
a visual symbol, e.g. U+2654 WHITE CHESS KING is different from U+265A
BLACK CHESS KING, when considered as visual symbols consisting of presence
or absence of dots or lines or pieces of curve that constitute it. Even
a completely colorblind person can see the difference.
> and there is no foreground or background colour involved.
I think any visual presentation of a character postulates the presence of
a background and a foreground coor, though not any _particular_ colors. We
can see dots, lines, and curves only as something that has a color
(counting black and white as colors - this is not about color as a purely
physical phenomenon) against something of a different color.
When you apply coloring to characters, e.g. using
color: blue; background: yellow;
in CSS, you effectively just set the foreground and background color
without affecting the identity of a character in any way.
> "White" and "Black" here could be replaced by "Player 1" and
> "Player 2". Therefore, U+2654 and U+265A have different semantics,
> not just different colours.
Yes, they have different semantics, but my point was that they don't
even have different colors. They just _look_ like being different colors.
-- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 10:01:29 CST