On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
(Couldn't a ZWJ be used as a way of joining two trigrams as a
hexagram?)
No! :'-(( Please don't overpollute the ZWJ. There's already more semantics
to that codepoint that one can simply count on her/his fingers...
roozbeh
I don't think there's any point in encoding 64 hexagrams; especially when
we have the pieces already. Use the pieces of three and position them with
a drawing program. We don't have combining thingies for putting chess
pieces on board squares, either.
Rick
Rick McGowan wrote:
I don't think there's any point in encoding 64 hexagrams; especially when
we have the pieces already. Use the pieces of three and position them with
a drawing program. We don't have combining thingies for putting chess
pieces on board squares, either.
Hi Rick,
I
At 04:16 PM 7/2/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
At 12:33 -0700 2001-07-02, Edward Cherlin wrote:
Has anyone proposed the following for inclusion in Unicode? If so, what
is their status?
Daoist Hexagrams, 64 forms (the trigrams are already included, but with
no combining mechanism)
You're welcome
At 11:18 PM 7/2/2001, Rick McGowan wrote:
I don't think there's any point in encoding 64 hexagrams; especially when
we have the pieces already. Use the pieces of three and position them with
a drawing program. We don't have combining thingies for putting chess
pieces on board squares, either.
Richard Cook wrote:
--A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
and unbroken lines. This alone is not a reason to encode them, but
Another list member mentioned (off-list) the system of 9 bigrams and 81 tetragrams.
These appear in the text of a book called [U+592a][U+7384][U+7d93]
Tai Xuan Jing by [U+63da][U+96c4] Yang Xiong.(c.53BC-c.18AD).
Where the 64 hexagrams are based on a binary system,
the 81 tetragrams are based
I think the absence of the 64 hexagrams is a mistake, and the idea of
composing them out of the trigrams (or of composing the trigrams out
of pieces either) is extremely silly. Sorry, Rick, but there are
things one can decompose and things one cannot. These are semantic
entities, regardless
At 11:40 AM 7/3/2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Richard Cook wrote:
--A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
and
At 23:18 -0700 2001-07-02, Rick McGowan wrote:
I don't think there's any point in encoding 64 hexagrams; especially when
we have the pieces already. Use the pieces of three and position them with
a drawing program.
That isn't plain text.
We don't have combining thingies for putting chess
At 13:59 -0700 2001-07-03, Edward Cherlin wrote:
But I thought proposals for characters with decompositions into existing
characters are no longer being accepted.
True for accented letters where the combining marks already exist,
but I don't think we want to have two sets of trigrams, one
John Cowan wrote:
Rick McGowan scripsit:
I don't think there's any point in encoding 64 hexagrams; especially when
we have the pieces already. Use the pieces of three and position them with
a drawing program. We don't have combining thingies for putting chess
pieces on board
Michael Everson wrote:
At 13:59 -0700 2001-07-03, Edward Cherlin wrote:
But I thought proposals for characters with decompositions into existing
characters are no longer being accepted.
True for accented letters where the combining marks already exist,
but I don't think we want to
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!(B: Re: New characters query
At 12:33 -0700 2001-07-02, Edward Cherlin wrote:
Has anyone proposed the following for inclusion in Unicode? If so,
what is their status?
Daoist Hexagrams, 64 forms (the
Michael Everson wrote:
At 12:33 -0700 2001-07-02, Edward Cherlin wrote:
Has anyone proposed the following for inclusion in Unicode? If so,
what is their status?
Daoist Hexagrams, 64 forms (the trigrams are already included, but
with no combining mechanism)
You're welcome to, if you
At 7:07 PM -0700 7/2/01, Richard Cook wrote:
Evidence? There's ample evidence, starting c. 1000 BC, with
[U+5468][U+6613] _Zhou Yi_ (aka _Yi Jing_ aka _I Ching_ aka _The Book of
Changes_), an artifact of the Zhou Dynasty ...
I agree with Richard here. It's silly to have the trigrams and not
John H. Jenkins wrote:
At 7:07 PM -0700 7/2/01, Richard Cook wrote:
Evidence? There's ample evidence, starting c. 1000 BC, with
[U+5468][U+6613] _Zhou Yi_ (aka _Yi Jing_ aka _I Ching_ aka _The Book of
Changes_), an artifact of the Zhou Dynasty ...
I agree with Richard here. It's silly
John H. Jenkins wrote:
At 7:07 PM -0700 7/2/01, Richard Cook wrote:
Evidence? There's ample evidence, starting c. 1000 BC, with
[U+5468][U+6613] _Zhou Yi_ (aka _Yi Jing_ aka _I Ching_ aka _The Book of
Changes_), an artifact of the Zhou Dynasty ...
I agree with Richard here. It's silly
John H. Jenkins wrote:
At 7:07 PM -0700 7/2/01, Richard Cook wrote:
Evidence? There's ample evidence, starting c. 1000 BC, with
[U+5468][U+6613] _Zhou Yi_ (aka _Yi Jing_ aka _I Ching_ aka _The Book of
Changes_), an artifact of the Zhou Dynasty ...
I agree with Richard here. It's silly
19 matches
Mail list logo
