From: Ken Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2011 - 18:13:52 CDT
On 4/12/2011 2:29 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
> I do not buy this reasoning.
Nor I yours.
> If not for mathematical usage,
> blackletter wouldn't have been disunified from antiqua,
Failure of premises here.
[Characters used for text styled in] blackletter [typefaces] have *not*
been disunified
from [characters used for text styled in] antiqua [typefaces].
[Characters for mathematical symbols styled in] blackletter have been
disunified from
[characters for mathematical symbols styled in] antiqua.
So it depends on what context and what characters you are talking about.
And in any case, "blackletter" has not been "disunified" from "antiqua"
-- that
concept is meaningless in Unicode.
> and any
> attempts at "if I send you a message with a blackletter 𝔐, I want you
> to see a blackletter 𝔐" would have been met with "use rich text".
And would be met with "use rich text" if your message was generic text, but
would be met with "use plain text and the alphanumeric symbols on the SMP"
if your message was mathematical, including symbols.
> Unless a context exists in which divination tarot cards coexist with
> playing cards and the otherwise equivalent cards have a semantic
> distinction, there is no reason to disunify.
This is also wrong as stated.
Obviously divination tarot cards are clearly distinct from playing cards, in
appearance, function, system, naming, and use, whatever their historical
relationship. One cannot substitute a tarot deck for playing bridge. Nor
can one
substitute a Vegas deck for casting tarot.
But their "unification" or "disunification" as objects (and systems of
objects)
is not at issue here.
The question is whether it makes sense to posit a set a abstract
characters to
represent graphical symbols (for tarot cards) used in (plain) text. And
in *that*
context, the questions to ask are:
1. Is there a need for such graphical symbols as abstract characters
to be encoded?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then does a graphical symbol attempting to
represent in some reasonable way the appearance of:
http://www.learntarot.com/bigjpgs/pents04.jpg
the same or different from a graphical symbol attempting to represent in
some reasonable way the appearance of:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bltpicons/4030262050/
Mark seems to be claiming that the answer to #2 is no, based on the
obvious extreme differences in appearance of the physical objects
that the graphical symbols would be representing.
But I would answer differently. I don't see a need to encode graphical
symbols that refer precisely to particular types of generic (and/or
proprietary)
decks of cards. That way ultimately lies madness, because someone would
be bound to come forth with encoding proposals for graphical symbols for
various magic decks and such.
Given that the standard already has a set of generic symbols for playing
cards,
I think the best thing to do is just leave them as they are:
representing graphical
symbols for general concepts of the playing cards of the European tradition,
non-specific as to exact appearance. So a symbol for the fourth card in
sequence
in the second suit, usually displayed with 4 doohickeys (which might be red
hearts, or might be golden pentacles, or maybe something else). I don't see
any advantage to the standard to further disunification of the referents
for such
symbols, and if anything see a path leading to potential further harm from
proliferation of the encoding of useless sets of symbols nobody wants to
actually
use a symbols.
I remain agnostic for the nonce regarding whether Michael has made a
sufficient
case for encoding another group of playing card symbols for the major arcana
and a third joker.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 12 2011 - 18:19:27 CDT
