Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation
Asmus Freytag (c)
asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Wed Apr 5 10:21:51 CDT 2017
On 4/5/2017 5:22 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>> .... - relying solely on ligatures has the benefit of not involving the UTC at all, therefore it could be implemented today without delay).
> I am wondering whether that is correct.
> Where one implements a ligature using a ZWJ without the Unicode Technical Committee having agreed then that is fine where the meaning of the text is unchanged: for example, if one chooses to include, say, a pp ligature in a font.
> Yet to implement a ligature using a ZWJ where the meaning is changed, then I am wondering whether that needs the agreement of the Unicode Technical Committee.
> There have been some recent encodings where ZWJ has been used with two or more emoji characters to produce a new emoji character where the meaning of the result is different from the combined meanings of the ingredients, the meaning of that new character not always or maybe never being congruently obvious unless one already knows the meaning.
> If a ZWJ encoding for producing chess diagrams were to be introduced, then if it is not UTC that decides the detail, then who does decide? Would a non-UTC decision be interoperable, would it be supported?
There's no need to use a ZWJ, because there's no existing other use of a
square before a chess piece that needs to be preserved.
PS: I assume it's safe to ignore the rest of your message, being based
on a wrong premise?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode