Leo Broukhis <leob at mailcom dot com> wrote: >> This is a handy feature, at least for character geeks like us, but >> "most platforms" might be a bit misleading here. There is a rather >> commonly used platform that starts with the letter W which does not >> do this. > > I was a little surprised myself when I saw it in Firefox under W7 > Enterprise, but here we are.
I'm surprised too; I hadn't tried using Firefox to view these sequences. Thanks for demonstrating this. We may once again be stumbling over different interpretations of the word "platform": does it refer to an operating system in general, a specific version thereof, or a specific editor, word processor, or browser under that OS and version? >> I think a useful bit of feedback on PRI #299 would be to inquire >> whether it is, in fact, a design goal to handle this use case of >> transparency of > > Huh? What kind of a deliberate design goal would be to forgo semantics > in favor of presentation, even as a fallback behavior? > In an ideal world, where all platforms are actively maintained, and > all maintainers rush to implement the cool new features, > it could have been acceptable, but not in our world, I'm afraid. I questioned whether it was a (positive) design goal to handle the fallback case in the way you described. I did not suggest that it was a (negative) design goal NOT to handle it, or to obscure the tag characters, and I would suggest there is a huge difference between the two. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
