At 04:40 -0700 2004-05-26, Andrew C. West wrote:
But we're not encoding dominos per se, but rather encoding representations of domino pieces in textual contexts. Whilst pictures of domino sets are interesting, and provide useful background information, I would imagine that examples of the textual usage of domino glyphs is what is required in order for domino characters to be accepted for encoding by the UTC and WG2.
Be serious. It doesn't take a genius to see that if people are using domino characters in text descriptions of domino rules and play and that there will be a need for all the major varieties. The 15- and 18-tile sets are used in tournament play. Just because someone hasn't put them on a web page (in a clumsy graphic) yet doesn't mean that it isn't reasonable to wait for them to do so.
Symbols are "hard" to encode because many people seem to be stuck on "semantic" meaning. Symbol sets are often just that, sets, and one of the things we will have to do is to complete the sets.
For instance, whether or not some of the symbols we have in the standard got there because of some "legacy" set at one stage, the fact is that real users now and in the future don't and won't care about those old character sets. That we have "geometric shapes" for instance but lack the PENTAGON is extremely silly, and is not very friendly to the primary-school teacher trying to use his computer to make documents for his pupils.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
