From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 09:27:31 CDT
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> But does that mean that this kind
> of text is to be ruled forever outside the scope of Unicode. I'm not
> saying it should be plain text. But Unicode should be able to support
> markup schemes which do allow such things.
The plain-text requirement still applies. I can imagine wanting to use
bold and italics and different fonts and sizes in the same document; in
fact, I just did so yesterday. But none of these features are plain
text, and so I did not expect them to be handled within Unicode.
The suggestion to add a "mark-color" capability to CSS might handle a
majority of the realistic situations where color is really understood to
be part of the textual content. Peter's two combining marks, a black
one in the actual manuscript and a red one added by the editor, sounds
less like a problem that Unicode or W3C need to worry about.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 11 2004 - 09:29:31 CDT