Re: Three modest proposals

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Tue Apr 05 2011 - 21:18:05 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Three modest proposals"

    On 04/05/2011 09:31 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
    > 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".)

    I'm don't know; I'm pretty sure I've seen playing-card images (and not
    ♠A) used in plain-text contexts. Yes, ideally I should find some
    examples and scan them for you. But encoding the cards does not strike
    me immediately as a mistake. And given those, the major arcana are

    Not so sure about the hatching squares, though. Much as I love
    blazonry, I can't really picture them in a truly plain-text setting.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 05 2011 - 21:21:51 CDT