On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:30:37 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote: > > > 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.
But we're not encoding dominos per se, but rather encoding representations of domino pieces in textual contexts. Whilst pictures of domino sets are interesting, and provide useful background information, I would imagine that examples of the textual usage of domino glyphs is what is required in order for domino characters to be accepted for encoding by the UTC and WG2. Andrew
