On 03/26/2015 11:18 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> Blocks of boring plain text, no italics or effects any more complex
than justification, simple notes written all in one font with no
formatting to speak of etc.
I am wondering if it is considered a good idea to define into Plane 14
some formatting characters, so that plain text could in the future
contain italics and so on.
And we could define "plain water" to include sugar and flavorings, and
have Coke run out of our taps. But that isn't "plain water" anymore.
And yes, we DO allow some additives in water and still call it "plain",
even as we do have some formatting characters in Unicode and call it
plain text (e.g. tab, formfeed, ZWJ, RLO, PDF, etc)
Alternatively, you could say we already have such things encodable as
plain text, using character sequences, like U+003C U+0069 U+003E to
indicate "BEGIN ITALICS", etc... Just need the right reader...
~mark
For example, written here with an asterisk included as I seem to
remember that that is the convention so as to avoid a suggested new
character being mistaken as an existing character, how about the
following.
*U+E1000 FORMAT NOT ITALICS
*U+E1001 FORMAT ITALICS
*U+E1002 FORMAT NOT BOLD
*U+E1003 FORMAT BOLD
Traditionally such a suggestion would be refuted as out of scope for
plain text: use of markup would be suggested.
Yet that was then, this is now: ideas of what can, or should, be
encoded in plain text have changed with time and could usefully
continue to change where that is of use to consumers.
I have often wondered why use of markup is regarded as such a
requirement when the capabilities of plain text could so easily be
enhanced. Expanding the capabilities of plain text would increase
interoperability.
William Overington
26 March 2015
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
