Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sat Feb 9 07:35:18 CST 2019
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:58 AM David Starner via Unicode <
unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:59 AM Kent Karlsson via Unicode <
> unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>> Den 2019-02-08 21:53, skrev "Doug Ewell via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org
>> > • Reverse on: ESC [7m
>> > • Reverse off: ESC [27m
>> "Reverse" = "switch background and foreground colours".
>> This is an (odd) colour thing. If you want to go with (full!) colour
>> (foreground and background), fine, but the "reverse" is oddball (and
>> based on what really old terminals were limited to when it comes to
> Note that this is actually the only thing that stands out to me in Unicode
> not supporting older character sets; in PETSCII (Commodore 64), the
> high-bit character characters were the reverse (in this sense) of the
> low-bit characters.
This is true, many legacy character sets encoded reverse-video characters
as wholly-separate characters, and even allowed them in contexts widely
considered plain-text such as file names. This makes reverse-video possibly
the one text attribute best argued to be worthy of encoding in Unicode. But
I can already tell you it won't work, because we made such an argument in
an early version of L2/19-025, and even proposed using VS14, the very same
VS William Overington has since swiped from us for italics. That proposal
was shot down rather quickly. Bold, italics, etc. don't even stand a chance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode