At 19:11 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
This could get out of hand very quickly.
"Out of hand?" The goal is to encode meaningful things that people want to use. We have a small subset of game symbols encoded already, and -- as with all symbols -- their availability raises expectations among users that fuller sets should be available.
There is no lack of available code positions. Domino characters would certainly be of more utility to more people than an obscure Chinese character that exists to name one of the horses of Emperor Wu.
Chinese and Japanese (shogi) chess pieces?
We have two shogi pieces encoded already. If there are others needed, why not encode them? Though the Japanese NB did not request them.
http://www.chessvariants.com/shogi.html
Chaturanga pieces?
Now that you mention it, it could well be that Chaturunga and Chinese Chess both could be considered extensions to a unified Chess repertoire:
WHITE CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (-> white chess queen) WHITE CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (-> white chess bishop) BLACK CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (-> black chess queen) BLACK CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (-> black chess bishop) WHITE XIANGQI MANDARIN (advisor, assistant, guard) WHITE XIANGQI CANNON BLACK XIANGQI MANDARIN BLACK XIANGQI CANNON
http://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/chaturanga.html http://www.chessvariants.com/xiangqi.html
Is there really a *plain-text* need for this stuff?
I think so. The examples are used inline in text, and you will note that one of the experts has expressed his desire to get away with the clumsiness of graphics. These things aren't new. They were once important enough for major type foundries to cut and sell type for them.
It should be noted that a number of people consider the set of 12 Chess Symbols encoded to be defective. It is suggested that we need to code the chess pieces on background, as they were originally cut in type. They are used as units that way, and it is hard to see what benefit there is for us to have only half the set. The hatching on the background does not extend to the outline of the pieces, showing that the background is designed around the piece, not superimposed.
At what point is it more practical to say 'use a graphic'?
When they are just pictures of things. Not when they are coherent sets of things with structure, used by people for well over a century to typeset information about an important and widespread realm of human activity.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
