On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:13 AM Andrew West <andrewcw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 April 2017 at 05:12, Garth Wallace via Unicode > <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > > > Later Xiangqi proposals by Andrew West focused on > > the circled ideographs and did not pursue new diagram drawing characters, > > and were eventually successful. > > My Xiangqi proposal > (http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16255-n4748-xiangqi.pdf) proposed a > minimal set of logical game pieces for Xiangqi/Janggi, regardless of > shape (circular or octagonal) or design (traditional characters, > simplified characters, cursive characters, or pictures) which I > consider a font design issue, and explicitly did not seek to encode > circled ideographs. My proposal was rejected, and a different proposal > by Michael Everson > (http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16270-n4766-xiangqi.pdf) to encode > all circled ideographs and negative circled ideographs attested in > Xiangqi game diagrams was accepted instead. > Ah, I misremembered, sorry. > > The accepted proposal for circled ideographs is a glyph encoding model > not a character encoding model as for other game symbols (Chess, > Dominos, Mahjong, Playing Cards, etc.), and in my opinion it is a very > bad model for several reasons. It makes the interchange of Xiangqi > game data and game diagrams problematic; it hinders normal text > processing operations on Xiangqi game pieces (for example, to search > for a red horse piece you have to search for three different > characters); and in modern computer usage Xiangqi game pieces may not > be represented as simple circled ideographs, but may be coloured > designs showing characters or images. It is also very likely that > vendors will want to produce emoji versions of Xiangqi pieces, and > these could not reasonably be considered to be glyph variants of > circled ideographs. There has been some negative feedback on the > circled ideographs model on the internet, and I believe that Michael > has now been convinced that this model is wrong, and should be > replaced by a model using logical game pieces. > > Andrew So has that proposal been retracted now? > >