Tex Texin wrote,
> ... However, the fact that there is a rich text solution for italics
> isn't helpful to plain text users.
Truer words were never spoken.
> In the '90s it made sense to resist styling plain text. In the 2020's,
> with more than 100k characters, numerous pictures and
Martin J. Dürst wrote,
> Almost by definition, styled text isn't plain text, even if it's
> simulated by something else.
By an earlier definition, in-line pictures weren't plain text, until
people started exchanging them as though they were. In this case,
people are exchanging plain text
On 11.01.2019 11:43, Tex via Unicode wrote:
Martin,
James is making the case there is demand or a user need and that the
proof is that users are using inconsistent tactics to simulate a
solution to their problem.
The use of math characters is mostly to get around limitations of
Twitter
Emoji were being encoded as characters, as codepoints in private use
areas. That inherently called for a Unicode response. Bidirectional
support is a headache; the amount of confusion and outright exploits
from them is way higher then we like.The HTML support probably doesn't
help that. However,
Martin,
James is making the case there is demand or a user need and that the proof is
that users are using inconsistent tactics to simulate a solution to their
problem.
The response that:
"Almost by definition, styled text isn't plain text, even if it's simulated by
something else."
is a bit
On 2019/01/11 16:13, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Styled Latin text is being simulated with math alphanumerics now, which
> means that data is being interchanged and archived. That's the user
> demand illustrated.
Almost by definition, styled text isn't plain text, even if it's
simulated
6 matches
Mail list logo
