Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation
wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com
Wed Apr 5 11:28:04 CDT 2017
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> 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.
Well, whether there is a need to use a ZWJ or no need to use a ZWJ is not here the issue.
Asmus wrote before:
> > > .... - relying solely on ligatures has the benefit of not involving the UTC at all, therefore it could be implemented today without delay).
I then asked, the question worded differently from how it is worded here, about whether UTC needs to be involved where a character sequence that contains one or more ZWJ characters generates a glyph with a meaning different from the meaning of the original sequence that did not have the one or more ZWJ characters included.
For example, p ZWJ p produces a pp ligature with no change of meaning.
For example, where WOMAN ZWJ ROCKET produces a glyph for a LADY ASTRONAUT, thus a change of meaning and I think that it went to UTC as there was a change of meaning but I am not congruently sure of that..
SQUARE ZWJ CHESSPIECE or CHESSPIECE ZWJ SQUARE produces a CHESSPIECE ON A SQUARE, thus a change of meaning.
So the question is not about the chess encoding but about the original comment that claimed " - relying solely on ligatures has the benefit of not involving the UTC at all, therefore it could be implemented today without delay).".
> PS: I assume it's safe to ignore the rest of your message, being based on a wrong premise?
Well, not a wrong premise.
Actually he rest of the post was about other aspects as well as that question, including some text about my experience with a metal chess fount and a puzzle that I hope that you will enjoy.
Wednesday 5 April 2017
More information about the Unicode