Looking at the image, the idea of the proposal is to include chess piece symbols in all four 90° rotations? Wouldn't it be better to do this in markup than in Unicode? I fear a combinatorial explosion if Unicode starts including all the possible orientations of characters. (Maybe there's a good reason to do this for chess; I'm just going off the image <http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png> .)
Ken On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry about the blank reply. Itchy trigger finger. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ken Whistler <kenwhist...@att.net> wrote: > >> >> On 10/6/2016 12:44 PM, Garth Wallace wrote: >> >> Some representatives of the WFCC have proposed alternate arrangements >> that assume there will be a need for bitwise operations to covert between >> the existing chess symbols in the Miscellaneous Symbols block and related >> symbols in the new block. I don't see the need but maybe I'm missing >> something. >> >> >> I don't think you are missing anything. Bitwise operations would >> certainly *not* be needed in a case like this. Small lookup and mapping >> tables would suffice. >> >> --Ken >> >> > Thank you. > > Just to be clear, this is the proposed allocation as it stands: > http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/ > proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png > > That arrangement is the result of some discussion with a representative of > the WFCC. > > And here are the alternatives that another WFCC representative recently > proposed and that prompted my question: http://i556.photobucket.com/ > albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/wfcc%20alternatives_zpstdvfgcf2.png >