Ken wrote...
> P.S. Regarding the dominoes per se, I'm coming down on the side of
> those arguing (as John Cowan has) that the *orientation* of the bones
> is not significant in the plain text usages. The *characters* to
> encode here should be for each distinct bone, regardless of
> orientation.
That is also my opinion.
> John that going beyond the double-twelve (for now) is just speculative
> and not supported by actual use in dominoes books.
I don't think this is speculative. A photograph of production domino sets
above 12 is included in the proposal. We might as well add them now as
later.
Rick
