From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2011 - 16:29:09 CDT
Good idea.
Beyond the overzealous unification with Tarot, I'm not sure the
unification across local variations of the cards holds up to scrutiny. I
would want to see working implementations that correctly show the local
variations without fail, before believing in this aspect of the unification.
A./
On 4/6/2011 1:35 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> The decision to add playing cards was not technically optimal; it was
> the price of getting in one compatibility character.
>
> Any unification of playing cards with tarot is simply a mistake. While
> they are historically related, they don't pass the legibility test,
> any more than Greek and Latin scripts as a whole do, or Latin and
> Russian do.
>
> I'll put in a proposal to disunify them. The only text in the standard
> that would need to be changed appears to be:
>
> A few annotations on
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-6.0/U60-1F0A0.pdf, and just
> for one suit: 1F0AB-E
>
> In Chapter 15
>
> Playing Cards: U+1F0A0–U+1F0FF
> These characters are used to represent the 52-card deck most commonly
> used today, and
> the 56-card deck used in some European games; the latter includes a
> Knight in addition to
> Jack, Queen, and King. These cards map completely to the Minor Arcana
> of the Western
> Tarot from which they derive, and are unified with the latter. Also
> included are a generic
> card back and two Jokers. U+1F0CF playing card black joker is used in
> one of the Japanese cell phone core emoji sets; its presentation may
> be in color and need not be black.
>
>
> Mark
>
> /— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —/
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 18:31, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com
> <mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
>
> On 4/5/2011 5:32 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" 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".)
>
> A./
>
>
> 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 : Wed Apr 06 2011 - 16:31:38 CDT