From: William_J_G Overington (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 14 2009 - 08:55:14 CDT
On Tuesday 14 April 2009, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <email@example.com> wrote:
> And that is essentially different from typing, say, <b>text</b> for bold text? Or using BBCode such as [b]text[/b]?
Well, in my view it is essentially different.
Suppose please, for this discussion, that one uses U+HIJKL to represent some yet-to-be-encoded regular Unicode character for initializing bold and one uses U+HIJKM to represent some yet-to-be-encoded regular Unicode character for switching off the bold effect, where each of H, I, J, K, L and M is a hexadecimal value.
The sequence would be of six characters, here separated by spaces for clarity in this discussion, though no such spaces in use.
U+HIJKL t e x t U+HIJKM
If one were preparing a document where either < or > or both of them were used to have the meanings specified in the Unicode Standard, then it would be easy to use those characters with those meanings.
There would no longer need to be the problem of using an ampersand and the letters lt and a semicolon in order to get the < character or of using an ampersand and the letters gt and a semicolon in order to get the > character.
It seems to me reasonable that some mini-markup is encoded as regular Unicode characters.
I feel that the arrow parentheses suggested by Bernard Miller some years ago should also be considered for encoding as regular Unicode characters as part of a mini-markup system. That would provide for a regular Unicode way to express superscripts, subscripts and upper and lower limits for summations and integrals.
It could all go in say plane 10 or plane 11 and could be ignored by those software applications that wish to do so.
14 April 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 14 2009 - 09:58:01 CDT