On 1/19/19 3:34 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-19 6:19 PM, wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that it would be useful to have some codes that are
> > ordinary characters in some contexts yet are control codes in
> others, ...
>
> Italics aren't a novel concept. The approach for encoding new
> characters is that conventions for them exist and that people *are*
> exchanging them, people have exchanged them in the past, or that
> people demonstrably *need* to exchange them.
>
> Excluding emoji, any suggestion or proposal whose premise is "It seems
> to me that it would be useful if characters supporting <this or
> that>..." is doomed to be deemed out of scope for the standard.
This was the quote I had been looking for, sorry James and Asmus. It
isn't the first time it's been pointed out here.
~mark
Received on Wed Jan 23 2019 - 20:10:56 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jan 23 2019 - 20:10:56 CST