From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 14:53:37 CDT
Gregg Reynolds wrote,
> ... It's misleading and confusing to
> say that multicolored text is not plaintext when in fact we have no way
> of inferring the form of the original coded message based solely on its
From the glossary at unicode.org:
( http://www.unicode.org/glossary/index.html )
"Plain Text. Computer-encoded text that consists only
of a sequence of code points from a given standard,
with no other formatting or structural information.
Plain text interchange is commonly used between
computer systems that do not share higher-level
Colour is not currently considered an aspect of plain text, so any
colouring information would be mark-up/rich text.
See also the glossary entry for rich text, which includes this: "The
Unicode Standard does not address the representation of rich text."
We seem to be off-topic.
Inserting mark-up tags between characters which would normally
ligate or shape or re-position breaks the run of text. This isn't
a problem; it's expected behaviour. Although it might be possible
to define some method of colouring parts of a glyph in HTML/XML,
by the time the authour has mastered the syntax and all of the
world's browsers support the syntax -- well, it would have been
simpler to just use graphics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 14:59:00 CDT