From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 05 2011 - 20:31:44 CDT
On 4/5/2011 5:32 PM, "Martin J. DÃ¼rst" wrote:
> On 2011/04/05 18:58, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2011, at 09:40, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> "Regular" cards (whether European or North American) *are*
>>> historically identical with "esoteric" cards. We unified them on
>>> this basis.
Even when the underlying objects are identical (or "unifiable") doesn't
mean it follows that it's appropriate to unify different representations
of them on another layer (the writing layer). Characters are an
abstraction for the purpose of writing, and not entities that directly
represent real-world objects.
This fact alone would suffice to convince me that the decision to encode
any playing card symbols was carried out on an insufficiently thought
through basis and that one is best off abandoning the existing symbols
as "mistakes" (or compatibility characters that map to other character
set implementers "mistakes".)
>>> For my part I think the unification is satisfactory enough (and you
>>> know how I am about over-unification). However, if you think that
>>> this unification was an over-unification, then perhaps we could work
>>> together to disunify them.
>> To accomplish this we would need 157characters in addition to the
>> ones already encoded:
>> 14 cards in the suit of Roses
>> 14 cards in the suit of Shields
> I'm not aware of any Roses or Shields (or Acorns or Bells for that
> matter) with more than 9 cards per suit. The cards 2 to 5 are
> non-existent. Also, there is no queen (the Knight is taken to be
> equivalent to the Queen; that by the way will mess up the
> 'character/glyph equivalence).
> But if they don't exist somewhere else, I'm sure somebody somewhere
> made them up :-(.
> Regards, Martin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 05 2011 - 20:34:41 CDT