Coloured Punctuation and Annotation

In topic 'Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess
notation', on Wed, 5 Apr 2017 03:05:16 -0700
Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> 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.
Received on Wed Apr 05 2017 - 16:48:55 CDT