Re: Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation

From: Richard Wordingham <>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 00:47:01 +0100

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:35:52 +0100
Michael Everson <> wrote:

> On 3 Apr 2017, at 22:03, Richard Wordingham
> <> wrote:

The relevant text before was,

"I'm talking about looking for a U+2654 glyph for ordinary text when
all the first font tried has is:

 2654 FE01; Chesspiece on white; # WHITE CHESS KING
 2654 FE02; Chesspiece on black; # WHITE CHESS KING"

> > Should it give a glyph for U+2654 or not?

> Of course. Why wouldn't it? It’s a graphic character.

What my conceptual example font has is not the sort of glyph one would
want for sentences like "Alice ♙ d4 meets White Queen ♕ (with shawl)".

> I don’t see how anything you’re saying either identifies or tried to
> solve any actual problem with the proposal. The proposal says “put
> some substitution tables into your chess font to display a particular
> glyph” and some apps do that and some don’t. You can’t use VS with
> apps that don't.

I'm trying to work out whether we need a variation sequence for
"chesspiece in a sentence". We need the advice of someone who's worked
on font fallback.

You don't need substitution tables to be executed if your application
can just look up glyphs for variation sequences.

Received on Mon Apr 03 2017 - 18:47:28 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 03 2017 - 18:47:28 CDT