From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2011 - 16:11:04 CDT
On 6 Apr 2011, at 21:35, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> The decision to add playing cards was not technically optimal; it was the price of getting in one compatibility character.
Perhaps opinions differ here about what is optimal. http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2760.pdf presented analogous evidence for dominos and playing cards. In any case, today is today.
> Any unification of playing cards with tarot is simply a mistake. While they are historically related,
They are historically identical, at least if you look at French and Italian sets. Esoteric Tarot uses Cups/Pentacles/Wands/Swords and the 21 Major Arcana, and as you see in Figure 3 the French set uses Hearts/Diamonds/Clubs/Spades and the 21 Trumps which often have the same imagery (though not in the pastoral Austrian decks).
> they don't pass the legibility test, any more than Greek and Latin scripts as a whole do, or Latin and Russian do.
Very well. But please be aware that Germany and Ireland proposed the unified set precisely because we anticipated that if we didn't, we'd've been criticized for *under*unifying.
> I'll put in a proposal to disunify them.
I would be pleased to prepare this proposal with you; I have already prepared a number of new glyphs. It would be nice to co-operate, since we often spar.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 06 2011 - 16:12:58 CDT