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