On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:35:52 +0100 Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2017, at 22:03, Richard Wordingham > <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: The relevant text before was, "I'm talking about looking for a U+2654 glyph for ordinary text when all the first font tried has is: 2654 FE01; Chesspiece on white; # WHITE CHESS KING 2654 FE02; Chesspiece on black; # WHITE CHESS KING" > > Should it give a glyph for U+2654 or not? > Of course. Why wouldn't it? It’s a graphic character. What my conceptual example font has is not the sort of glyph one would want for sentences like "Alice ♙ d4 meets White Queen ♕ (with shawl)". > I don’t see how anything you’re saying either identifies or tried to > solve any actual problem with the proposal. The proposal says “put > some substitution tables into your chess font to display a particular > glyph” and some apps do that and some don’t. You can’t use VS with > apps that don't. I'm trying to work out whether we need a variation sequence for "chesspiece in a sentence". We need the advice of someone who's worked on font fallback. You don't need substitution tables to be executed if your application can just look up glyphs for variation sequences. Richard.
