Re: Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation

From: William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:28:04 +0100 (BST)

Asmus Freytag wrote:
      
> There's no need to use a ZWJ, because there's no existing other use of a square before a chess piece that needs to be preserved.

Well, whether there is a need to use a ZWJ or no need to use a ZWJ is not here the issue.

Asmus wrote before:

> > > .... - relying solely on ligatures has the benefit of not involving the UTC at all, therefore it could be implemented today without delay).
    
I then asked, the question worded differently from how it is worded here, about whether UTC needs to be involved where a character sequence that contains one or more ZWJ characters generates a glyph with a meaning different from the meaning of the original sequence that did not have the one or more ZWJ characters included.

For example, p ZWJ p produces a pp ligature with no change of meaning.

For example, where WOMAN ZWJ ROCKET produces a glyph for a LADY ASTRONAUT, thus a change of meaning and I think that it went to UTC as there was a change of meaning but I am not congruently sure of that..

SQUARE ZWJ CHESSPIECE or CHESSPIECE ZWJ SQUARE produces a CHESSPIECE ON A SQUARE, thus a change of meaning.

So the question is not about the chess encoding but about the original comment that claimed " - relying solely on ligatures has the benefit of not involving the UTC at all, therefore it could be implemented today without delay).".
   
> PS: I assume it's safe to ignore the rest of your message, being based on a wrong premise?

Well, not a wrong premise.

Actually he rest of the post was about other aspects as well as that question, including some text about my experience with a metal chess fount and a puzzle that I hope that you will enjoy.

William Overington

Wednesday 5 April 2017
Received on Wed Apr 05 2017 - 11:59:10 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 05 2017 - 11:59:10 CDT