From: Gregg Reynolds (unicode@arabink.com)
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 14:56:39 CDT
Tim Greenwood wrote:
> On 6/15/05, Gregg Reynolds <unicode@arabink.com> wrote:
>
>>The point being that we always have these two things - text and its
>>representation - and we don't have (or use, at least) precise
>>terminology for talking about them. 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
>>representation.
>
>
> I love these semantic discussions and your argument has merit. However
> for this list the salient point is that the Unicode standard says (and
> should say) as much about how any application colors any part of text
> as the ASCII standard says how emacs should color the keywords in C
> program listing.
>
Thanks and agreed. IMO the standard should remain completely silent on
issues of rendering and style. After all the receiver of a plain text
message is free to render it with any style he pleases, including smoke
signals or hand-waving.
-g
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 14:59:53 CDT