On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:32:44 +0100 Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2017, at 20:13, Philippe Verdy <verd...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > Chess characters aren’t emojis. That doesn't mean that solutions applicable to emojis might not be applicable elsewhere. > The logic of the use of VS in this proposal is no different from the > logic used with them in maths, or in Myanmar, or even in some emoji. It is. As far as I am aware, it is not completely wrong to use a 'dotted' Khamti-syle letter for Burmese. Assuming you are not just looking for a technically simple solution, but also an honest one, I can only think you are treating a depiction using 'black squares' for empty 'black' squares, 'white squares' for empty 'white' squares, and chess pieces for occupied squares as the starting point. However, you are proposing to adjoin notation the squares the pieces are sitting on. Someone, intending to be believed, claimed that a white chess square was not a 'nirvanic nothing', despite also claiming that it did not naturally have colour, but was transparent in display terms. (The chessboard nearest me has yellow white squares.) This is stretching a principle, rather like the piecemeal addition of subscript and superscript letters. > If there are other uses which can be made of chess pieces, then those > uses can be investigated in due course by someone interested in that. > > > and various board types may be used (not only with square cells, > > for example there are rectangular ones or triangular for Shogi > > pieces in Japan, > > Shogi is not chess. Shogi notation is not like chess notation, > either. Try to focus on the actual proposal. It is better to know where the encoding additions are likely to take us. Are we heading for a dartboard notation? Richard.
