On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 7:14 AM Michael Everson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Argh, Garth… please don’t shoot down our own proposal… I'm not, I'm just saying that if having symbols without VS not match either of the VSes is a sticking point, it's not hard to work around. > > > > On 5 Apr 2017, at 03:41, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I haven't worked on font fallback but maybe I can add something to this. > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure we need to make a distinction between > piece-on-light-square and piece-in-notation at the SVS level. > > Yes, we do, if we want the data to be well formed. > > > Currently, chess fonts can be (roughly) divided into "diagram fonts" and > "notation fonts”. > > That’s not true. There are some which do all three. There are, sure. I said roughly: many don't do both & rely on font-switching. > > > > A diagram font: > > - Is fixed-width (at least for the chess figurines themselves) > > - Centers each figurine in the character cell > > - Has a means of producing dark squares and on-dark-square equivalents > of the figurines, either through separate allocation or a "combining dark > square background" mechanism (usually a negative kerning hack) > > - Usually has board border elements, and may have decimal digits and a > subset of the lowercase Basic Latin alphabet for labeling ranks and files > > Gods, no. I was hoping to avoid the digits and letters for now. We mustn’t > scare them. > Well, they're just letters and digits. They aren't treated specially. > > > None of the features required for a diagram font are unacceptable in > figurine notation: > > The white ones may be too wide for use in text. > Not visually ideal, but legible. > > > In addition, when figurines for notation and for diagrams are > distinguished, they are distinguished above the character level, in runs of > like type: rows of a diagram, or lines of figurine notation. > > No, that’s spelling. > > Michael > > Sigh.
