FW: Chromatic text. (follows from Re: [unicode] Re: FW: Inappropriate Proposals FAQ)

From: Suzanne M. Topping (stopping@bizwonk.com)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 16:53:42 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Overington [mailto:WOverington@ngo.globalnet.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:20 AM

> To me, such a distinction means that people who are using
> lower cost, more
> generally available software packages, might by such an
> approach be able in
> the not too distant future to use files in a non-proprietary
> portable format
> and get much better results than just using monochrome
> traditional plain text.
I don't see how putting this sort of stuff in Unicode in any way speeds
up adoption into real-world use. Applications have to "learn" how to
deal with the text manipulation specification, whether it's provided as
markup or theoretically stored in Unicode. Bottom line is that it would
take a while to trickle down to the level you describe. Unicode isn't
the/a solution for bridging your digital divide.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 11 2002 - 15:00:34 EDT