> On 4 Apr 2017, at 02:01, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsso...@telia.com> wrote: > >>> Book formatting? Old style book formatting still cannot use as >>> sophisticated layouts as HTML can... (AFAIK). >> >> Yeah, but come on, the chief use of chess characters is to cite them inline >> in text like any other symbol @ § % & and the other equally chief use of >> chess characters is to set 8 × 8 chessboards which float in space in the >> layout as figures. The layout requirement isn’t all that demanding that HTML >> offers a major advantage. > > In case you missed it, the statement I made above was in *SUPPORT* of your > proposal (in general, but not necessarily all details)…
It’s not easy to tell because couterapproaches suggested are not well specified and really don’t seem to be practical. It *is* important that there be an even number of characters in every row of 8 squares for fallback display to be better rather than worse, I think. I don’t think it’s possible to ensure that the rendering engine every app displays the fallback identically (Seems that Word and LibreOffice and Pages and Quark display a little differently; this seems to be that they load glyphs from some fonts before glyphs from others. I found while setting the tables that it was convenient to have to remember that every one of the 64 characters had to have VS1 or VS2 along with it. Constructing a table from scratch and modifying and existing one both felt easier with uniform encoding. Michael Everson
