Encoding colour (from Re: Encoding italic)

[Kent Karlsson via Unicode]

Den 2019-02-12 03:20, skrev "Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode"
<unicode at unicode.org>:

> On 2/11/19 5:46 PM, Kent Karlsson via Unicode wrote:
>> Continuing too look deep into the crystal ball, doing some more
>> hand swirls...
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> The scheme quoted (far) below (from wjgo_10009), or anything like it,
>> will NEVER be part of Unicode!
> 
> Not in Unicode, but I have to say I'm intrigued by the idea of writing
> HTML with tag characters (not even necessarily "restricted" HTML: the
> whole deal).  This does NOT make it possible to write "italics in plain
> text," since you aren't writing plain text.  But what you can do is
> write rich text (HTML) that Just So Happens to look like plain text when
> rendered with a plain-text-renderer (and maybe there could be
> plain-text-renderers that straddle the line, maybe supporting some
> limited subset of HTML and doing boldface and italics or something. 

And so would ESC/command sequences as such, if properly skipped for display.
If some are interpreted, those would affect the display of other characters.
Just like "HTML in tag characters" would. A show invisibles mode would
display both ESC/command sequences as well as "HTML in tag characters"
characters.

> BUT, this would NOT be a Unicode feature/catastrophe at all.  This would
> be purely the decision of the committee in charge of HTML/XML and
> related standards, to decide to accept Unicode tag characters as if they
> were ASCII for the purposes of writing XML tags/attributes &c.  It's

I have no say on HTML/CSS, but I would venture to predict that those
who do have a say, would not be keen on that idea. And XML tags in
general need not be in ASCII. And... identifiers in CSS need not
be in pure ASCII either... And attribute values, like filenames
including those that refer to CSS files (CSS is preferably stored
separately from the HTML/XML), certainly need not be pure ASCII.)

So, no, I'd say that that idea is completely dead.

/Kent K


> totally nothing to do with Unicode, unless the XML folks want Unicode to
> change some properties on the tag chars or something.  I think it's a...
> fascinating idea, and probably has *disastrous* consequences lurking
> that I haven't tried to think of yet, but it's not a Unicode idea.
> 
> ~mark
>