In topic 'Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation', on Wed, 5 Apr 2017 03:05:16 -0700 Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/5/2017 1:10 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > A piece with a *white* background is different to a piece that is > > merely an outline, whether filled or not. > Unless you select an 'emoji_presentation' you do not get two-toned > glyphs, therefore "white" is always the same as "transparent". This > is true for anything in plain text, not just game pieces. Where does this come from? I tried to read it from UTS#51 'Unicode Emoji', which is not part of TUS, but I couldn't deduce that a font that enables U+10B99 PSALTER PAHLAVI SECTION MARK to have exactly two (as opposed to none or four) red dots is in breach of the guidelines therein. Are we really going to have to set up Psalter Pahlavi emoji? There's also some encoded Ethiopic punctuation that certainly used to have red dots. I think the emoji database has overlooked an entire script of emoji - the Egyptian hieroglyphs! Richard.
