On 1/25/2019 3:49 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
Assuming some mechanism for italics is added to Unicode, when converting between the new plain text and HTML there is insufficient information to correctly convert to HTML. many elements may have italic stying and there would be no meta information in Unicode to indicate the appropriate HTML element.
So, we would be creating an interoperability issue. A./
On Friday, 25 January 2019, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com <mailto:wjgo_10...@btinternet.com> via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org <mailto:unicode@unicode.org>> wrote:Asmus Freytag wrote; Other schemes, like a VS per code point, also suffer from being different in philosophy from "standard" rich text approaches. Best would be as standard extension to all the messaging systems (e.g. a common markdown language, supported by UI). A./ Yet that claim of what would be best would be stateful and statefulness is the very thing that Unicode seeks to avoid. Plain text is the basic system and a Variation Selector mechanism after each character that is to become italicized is not stateful and can be implemented using existing OpenType technology. If an organization chooses to develop and use a rich text format then that is a matter for that organization and any changing of formatting of how italics are done when converting between plain text and rich text is the responsibility of the organization that introduces its rich text format. Twitter was just an example that someone introduced along the way, it was not the original request. Also this is not only about messaging. Of primary importance is the conservation of texts in plain text format, for example, where a printed book has one word italicized in a sentence and the text is being transcribed into a computer. William Overington Friday 25 January 2019 -- Andrew Cunningham lang.supp...@gmail.com <mailto:lang.supp...@gmail.com>
