Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation
everson at evertype.com
Mon Apr 10 05:58:57 CDT 2017
On 10 Apr 2017, at 11:40, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
> Even if I were [wrong], nobody has proven that. Everybody is just shouting out their presumptions and prejudices, full of falsehoods.
I have stated that emoji is a different world. It brings with it specific implications for burdening vendors in a particular way. I am not having this simple, feasible, sensible, and effective proposal derailed by mixing it in with colourful emoji fonts. I have stated nothing false.
>> Emoji as a special relationship with vendors and a particular implementation environment.
> That is true. It does not mean that
> a) this environment would not be used to interchange chess diagrams nor
Emoji is for sending stuff to your friends via various messaging services.
Chess diagrams have been set in plain type for going on two hundred years. That’s what the proposal supports. That’s all it supports. It solves the problem of using the UCS to set such diagrams. That’s it.
> b) parties interested in rendering textual chess diagrams couldn't take advantage of it and bend it to their requirements.
I’ve worked with vendors providing colour emoji glyphs and black-and-white emoji lists. Implementation is time-consuming and expensive. I just want standardized variation sequences for chess notation so that chess fonts can be sorted out.
>> Vendors via the UTC look at symbol and pictograph and other characters and decide if they want to give these symbols and pictographs and other characters the special characteristic which implies generally colour rendering and implies an obligation to supply input methods for those characters.
> Yes, Unicode's emojification process is still seriously broken. It's not an argument against reusing the underlying techniques, though.
I said it once already. Now I’m saying it again. Only the UTC assigns the emoji category to symbols. I’m not asking, and am not going to ask, the UTC to assign the emoji category to chess symbols.
>> Please stop trying to conflate emoji and chess characters. It is NOT, I think, a solution which the UTC would agree to. I would oppose it in SC2.
> That's why I'm trying to convince you (but not just you) in this early stage.
I’m not convinced and I’m not going to be convinced. The emoji VS would not solve the problem I have in any case. I need two VS characters, one for light squares and one for dark squares and the emoji VS only say “you can make it colourful”. Emojification of chess characters is not the correct solution to the problem.
>>> In all existing implementations they are.
>> That’s not true.
> Could you please provide a counter example?
I’ve seen chess fonts that have free-standing chesspiece characters as well as chess characters on light squares and dark ones.
> *Emojis* are always square. I didn't say anything about fonts used for chess diagrams here.
Square also does not mean “em-square sized” which is pretty much what you need for chess diagrams.
More information about the Unicode